Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies 9781463211189

Citation preview

TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION: NEW TESTAMENT TEXT-CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDIES

TEXTS AND STUDIES Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature THIRD SERIES Edited by D. C. PARKER & D. G. K. TAYLOR

Volume 4 TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION: NEW TESTAMENT TEXT-CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDIES

TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION: NEW TESTAMENT TEXT-CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL STUDIES Edited by J. W. CHILDERS & D. C. PARKER

Gorgias Press Piscataway, NJ

2006

First Edition, copyright © 2006 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey

ISBN 1–59333–367–6

Gorgias Press 46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com Book design & typesetting by J. W. Childers All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any means of information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the Copyright Act of 1976, without prior written permission of the publisher and the authors of individual chapters. Printed and bound in the United States of America.

For Carroll Duane Osburn

Contents Preface In honorem Acknowledgements Diagram and Tables Abbreviations

xiii xvi xvii xviii xix

Transmission The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Larry W. Hurtado Textual Transmission of the New Testament Writings Newly Published Manuscripts Second-Century Citations Collections Canon Conclusion

4 6 14 19 24 27

Early Variants in the Byzantine Text of the Gospels . . . . . . . . 28 Klaus Wachtel “Byzantine Text” A Complex Picture Trends in Collated Lectionary Evidence Summary Analysis of the Collation Table Conclusions The Collation Table

28 29 31 38 39 41

Manuscripts of John’s Gospel with Hermeneiai . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 D. C. Parker Descriptions of the Parchment Codices 0210 0302

vii

50 50 50

viii

contents An Analysis of the Documents Date Script Presentation Orthography Text Forms Use of Manuscripts Containing Hermeneiai in Editing John

51 51 52 52 53 55 66

The Ethiopic Version and the “Western” Text of Acts in Le Texte Occidental des Actes des Apôtres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Curt Niccum Transmission History The Earliest Period The Syriac Revision The Greek Revision Presentation of the Evidence Boismard’s Defence The Ethiopic and the Fleury Palimpsest Conclusion

71 72 72 75 79 80 83 87

The Text of the Epistles Sixty Years After: An Assessment of Günther Zuntz’s Contribution to Text-Critical Methodology and History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Michael W. Holmes Introduction Zuntz and Text-Critical Practice Zuntz and Text-Critical Method Zuntz and New Testament Textual History Conclusion

90 92 94 106 113

Sind Schreiber früher neutestamentlicher Handschriften Interpreten des Textes?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Barbara Aland Aufgabe und Ziel Die Wirkung des Textes auf frühe Schreiber und Handschriften am Beispiel von P66

114 115

contents Ergebnis Die Wirkung des Textes auf frühe Schreiber und Handschriften am Beispiel von P46 Zusammenfassung

ix 118 119 121

Minor Textual Variants in Romans 16:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Eldon Jay Epp Introduction: Textual Variants and Non-Variants Junia/Junias: A Non-Variant in Romans 16:7 Variant Readings in Romans 16:7 “Julia,” a Variant for “Junia” The Definite Article τούς The Apostles “in Christ before Me” An Apostle “in Christ before Me” ᾿Ιησοῦ following Χριστῷ The Text of P46 in Romans 16:7 Conclusion

123 124 130 130 132 135 136 137 138 139

The Spirit and Resurrection in Paul: Text and Meaning in Romans 8:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Gordon D. Fee The Spirit as the Divine Agent of Resurrection—an Overview of the Evidence Romans 1:4 Romans 6:4 1 Corinthians 6:14 The Textual Question Transcriptional Probability—The Mind of the Scribe Intrinsic Probability—the Mind of Paul

143 145 145 146 147 150 151

The Life of Porphyry: Clarifying the Relationship of the Greek and Georgian Versions through the Study of New Testament Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 J. W. Childers The Georgian Text The Syriac Source of the Georgian Text

157 159

x

contents Relationship Between the Syriac and Greek Texts Linguistic Realities Discrepancies and Problematic Passages An Inconclusive Debate Back to the Beginning—Theodoret’s Prologue Conclusion

162 162 166 170 170 175

Reception 11QTemple 57–59, Ps.-Aristeas 187–300, and Second Temple Period Political Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Mark W. Hamilton The Aims of Kingship The King as Moral Exemplar and Wise Man in Ps.-Aristeas The King as Warrior under Restraint in Temple Scroll Concluding Remarks

185 186 188 193

Water into Wine ( John 2:1–11): Foreshadow of the Atonement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Kenneth V. Neller Previous Proposals A More Evident Proposal Conclusion

198 203 210

The Ephesian Artemis “Whom All Asia and the World Worship” (Acts 19:27): Representative Epigraphical Testimony to Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσία outside Ephesos. . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Richard E. Oster, Jr. Introduction General Issues of Methodology Ephesians and Artemis Ephesia Beyond Ephesos Civic Recognition of Artemis Ephesia beyond Ephesos Conclusion

212 215 216 225 231

contents

xi

An Exegetical Note on the Ellipsis in 1 Timothy 2:9 . . . . . . . 232 Kenneth L. Cukrowski The Ellipsis in 1 Timothy 2:9 Ellipsis with βούλομαι προσεύχεσθαι. Ellipsis with βούλομαι. Reflections on the Roles of Women

233 233 236 237

The Epistle to the Hebrews in the Works of Clement of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 James W. Thompson The Prologue of Hebrews Moses, the Wilderness and the Promise of Rest Milk and Meat and the Levels of Education The High Priest, the Levitical Cultus, and Christ The Significance of Faith Faith as Preconception Faith as Assent and Choice Faith and Martyrdom Faith as Seeing the Invisible Faith as Pilgrimage Conclusion

240 242 243 245 248 249 249 250 252 253 254

The Greek Grammar of Sexuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Everett Ferguson Marrying Divorcing Committing Fornication Committing Adultery Concluding Remarks

256 260 263 264 269

Clement of Alexandria: An Epistemology of Christian Paideia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Frederick D. Aquino Christian Paideia as Proper Fit Exemplars of Christian Paideia Christian Paideia as an Art of Life Concluding Remarks

271 276 280 282

xii

contents

Carroll Duane Osburn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Tera Harmon Carroll D. Osburn Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Indices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Preface One of the most intriguing angles of inquiry in contemporary biblical scholarship involves the study of the reception of the biblical text. Like windows, instances of textual reception invite us to peer into them in order to gain fresh insight into the developing stories of Christian communities. The careful observer of such instances will witness the dynamic interplay between the text and human cultures. Even the motivations and experiences of individual past readers of the text may become perceptible. The present volume brings together sixteen original studies addressing various issues related to the past and present reception of the New Testament text, including the fundamental challenge of clarifying the shape of the text itself and understanding the processes of its transmission. The history of New Testament reception begins with the study of the material evidences for the text. Appreciating this history involves descriptive codicology and the cataloguing of scribal phenomena but ultimately entails more than just explaining the relationship between divergent witnesses and adjudicating between their testimonies in order to identify the most primitive text form. Phenomena occurring within the textual tradition attest to an ongoing dynamic process of the reception of the text as an object of pious devotion, theological reflection, and scholarly research. Ancient manuscripts are not mere repositories of textual data; they reverberate with the echoes of faithful meditation, intellectual discourse, and mighty battles between opposing parties. Manuscript investigations create resonances with contemporary concerns in surprising and often provocative ways. Given this awareness, the distance between the traditional categories of “lower” and “higher” criticisms diminishes or even disappears altogether. As the work of many of the authors featured in this volume shows, the fruits of the researches of textual critics offer insights that are valuable for the interpretation of the biblical text, for patristics, history, and theology. In the first part of this volume (Transmission) some of the world’s leading textual critics present new textual data, offer helpful critiques of current methods, and apply the results of their text-critical research to

xiii

xiv

preface

issues within New Testament and early Christian studies. Larry Hurtado (“The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon”) takes a close look at recent discoveries and developments in the study of the second-century New Testament text, underscoring the crucial importance of that period for perceiving the shape and function of the New Testament in early Christianity. His essay updates our understanding of the status quaestionis, challenging some former positions while reinforcing others. Klaus Wachtel’s study (“Early Variants in the Byzantine Text of the Gospels”) adds to the growing body of knowledge about a text form that is often overlooked and typically misunderstood. Illustrating the complexity of the Byzantine text-type, he calls textual critics to revise traditional estimates of the value of lectionary evidence. New Testament manuscripts used for purposes of divinization constitute the subject of D. C. Parker’s study (“Manuscripts of John’s Gospel with Hermeneiai”). A careful examination of their form and content helps determine their character and removes some suspicions regarding the use of such documents as witnesses to the text of John’s Gospel. Curt Niccum investigates the affinities of the Ethiopic text of Acts (“The Ethiopic Version and the ‘Western’ Text of Acts in Le Texte Occidental des Actes des Apôtres”). Scrutinizing the methods that Boismard and Lamouille use to reconstruct the history of the Ethiopic version and define its character, his study reveals critical flaws in the identification of that version as “Western.” Michael W. Holmes revisits Günther Zuntz’s magisterial work on the text of Paul’s Epistles (“The Text of the Epistles Sixty Years After: An Assessment of Günther Zuntz’s Contribution to Text-Critical Methodology and History”). He observes that Zuntz’s achievements in text-critical methodology, often overlooked, deserve renewed attention due to their foresight and enduring relevance to the discipline. In a thought-provoking study of select New Testament papyri (“Sind Schreiber früher neutestamentlicher Handschriften Interpreten des Textes?”), Barbara Aland makes an important contribution to the ongoing discussion of whether and to what extent scribes functioned as textual interpreters. She demonstrates the need to examine closely the habits of a particular scribe before passing judgement on the scribe’s motives and methods. Eldon Jay Epp engages the thorny textual problem of the name Junia/Julia/Junias in an examination of textual variants associated

preface

xv

with the narrative of Andronicus and Junia (“Minor Textual Variants in Romans 16:7”). After explaining the relegation of the masculine form “Junias” to the status of a “non-variant,” he argues on text-critical and exegetical grounds that the female Junia is to be understood as a first-century apostle. Gordon D. Fee (“The Spirit and Resurrection in Paul: Text and Meaning in Romans 8:11”) explores another problematic passage in Romans, for which variation exists that would posit the Holy Spirit as the divine agent of resurrection. He argues against the latter, insisting that the commonly accepted interpretation of the passage is based on the wrong form of the text and a misconstrual of Paul’s theology. J. W. Childers examines the versional tradition of an historically important Late Antique hagiographical text (“The Life of Porphyry: Clarifying the Relationship of the Greek and Georgian Versions through the Study of New Testament Citations”). Utilizing the controls provided through a careful study of the Life’s biblical citations, he proposes a solution to the long-standing question regarding the relative priority of its versions. The second part of this volume (Reception) focuses on the interpretation of select portions of the New Testament, its background and language, and the reception of the text by particular interpreters. Each article presents new research bearing on the contemporary interpretation and relevance of the New Testament text. Mark W. Hamilton explores a feature of New Testament background—Jewish conceptions of kingship during the Second Temple Period (“11QTemple 57–59, Ps.-Aristeas 187–300, and Second Temple Period Political Theory”). He finds surprising resonances between one of the Dead Sea scrolls and the Hellenistic Ps-Aristeas. In an exegetical treatment of a famous Johannine passage (“Water into Wine [ John 2:1–11]: Foreshadow of the Atonement”), Kenneth V. Neller studies several proposals for interpreting the significance of the miraculous “sign” at Cana. Paying close attention to literary context, he provides a fresh look at the interpretation of the event as a foretaste of Passion. Richard E. Oster advances our knowledge of material evidence pertaining to the ancient Ephesian Artemis, utilizing epigraphic data to locate the goddess in her Greco-Roman surroundings (“The Ephesian Artemis ‘Whom All Asia and the World Worship’ [Acts 19:27]: Representative Epigraphical Testimony to Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσία outside Ephesos”). He issues a call for the rejuvenation of epigraphical study

xvi

preface

amongst New Testament scholars who wish to understand the culture in which the New Testament took shape. Kenneth L. Cukrowski addresses a long-standing problem for interpreters and translators of 1 Tim 2:9, involving the omission of a verb (“An Exegetical Note on the Ellipsis in 1 Timothy 2:9”). His proposed solution has implications for understanding the public roles of women in early Christianity. James W. Thompson explores the place of Hebrews in the Alexandrian tradition by studying Clement of Alexandria’s exegetical handling of the text (“The Epistle to the Hebrews in the Works of Clement of Alexandria”). By involving Philo as a conversation partner, Thompson finds striking points of overlap and tension between the three authors. With characteristic thoroughness, Everett Ferguson examines numerous Greek literary contexts in order to test the presumption that Greek idiom tended to employ active voice verbs for male involvement in sexual activity and middle or passive voice verbs for the female (“The Greek Grammar of Sexuality”). His encylopaedic analysis confirms the presumption, raising questions about exegetical decisions that misconstrue the significance of an author’s use of a particular voice when discussing sexual matters. Frederick D. Aquino reads Clement of Alexandria’s notion of Christian paideia in light of recent philosophical work in virtue epistemology (“Clement of Alexandria: An Epistemology of Christian Paideia”). His study uncovers many points of contact between Clement’s meditations and contemporary concerns for the place of wisdom, understanding, and humility in academic research, discourse, and education. In honorem This volume was commissioned and compiled in honour of Carroll D. Osburn on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Each of the essays touches on subjects that find prominent places in Carroll’s teaching and research interests. The authors constitute a group of colleagues and friends who have come to admire the diligence with which he worked and respect the high standards he set for himself. By his personal investment in the field of New Testament textual criticism he has infused that discipline with some of his own energy. His passionate support and readiness to serve have encouraged colleagues and students alike. An appreciative note and bibliography at the end of this volume explores in greater detail the nature of Carroll’s contributions as teacher, scholar, churchman, and a man compassionately engaged in society.

preface

xvii

Acknowledgements Putting together a compilation of essays such as this naturally involves the work of many people. The editors wish to express their appreciation for the contributors, who laboured diligently through multiple revisions to produce outstanding pieces of scholarship. It has been a privilege to work with extraordinary scholars whose collegiality has greatly lightened the load of producing such a book. Their names and present situations are to be found in a list near the end of this volume. The staff at Gorgias Press have been helpful at every turn; their expertise and support have been invaluable. We appreciate also the assistance of Houston Shearon in proofreading and indexing. The book generally follows the biblical studies citation standards of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). Particularly where ancient authors are cited the reader may find it useful to refer to the list of standard SBL abbreviations. A comprehensive list of abbreviations of modern works used in the book occurs herein.

J. W. Childers D. C. Parker

May 2006

Diagram and Tables

Diagram 1: History of New Testament Text (Westcott & Hort). . 107

Table 1: Explanation of the Collation Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Table 2: Lectionaries Collated for Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Table 3: Signs and Abbreviations used in the Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 4: Collation Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 5: Summary of Manuscript Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Table 6: Singular Readings in Pre-9th-Century MSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table 7: Faithfulness and Unfaithfulness–Polarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

xviii

Abbreviations AAWG AB ABD ÄF AJA ALGHJ AnBib AnBoll ANF

ANRW

ANTF APF ASV BAR BECNT BETL BGAD

BGU BHG Bib BJRL BSac BZ BZGBE

Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Äthiopistische Forschungen American Journal of Archaeology Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Analecta biblica Analecta bollandiana The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994 Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Part 2, Principat. New York: de Gruyter, 1972– Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung Archiv für Papyrusforschung American Standard Version British Archaeological Reports Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999 Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. 15 vols. Berlin, 1895–1983 Bibliotheca hagiographica graece. Brussels, 1977 Biblica Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Bibliotheca sacra Biblische Zeitschrift Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese

xix

xx BZNW CahRB CBET CBQ CBQMS CIL ConBNT CPG CRINT CSCO CSEL CSP CSS DJD DOP DRev EEC ETL ERV ExpTim FAT FC FHG FiE ICC IG IGRP

ILS HE HSem HTKNT

abbreviations Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Cahiers de la Revue Biblique Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Corpus inscriptionum latinarum Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series Clavis patrum graecorum. Edited by M. Geerard. 5 vols. Turnhout, 1974–1987 Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum Cambridge Studies in Philosophy Cistercian Studies Series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dumbarton Oaks Papers Downside Review Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Edited by E. Ferguson. 2d ed. New York, 1990 Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses English Revised Version Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C., 1947– Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. Paris, 1841–1870 Forschungen in Ephesos International Critical Commentary Inscriptiones graecae. Editio minor. Berlin, 1924– Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. Inscriptiones asiae II. Eds. R. Cagnat et al. Paris, 1927. Repr. Chicago: Ares, 1975 Inscriptiones latinae selectae. Ed. Hermann Dessau. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmannos, 1892-1916. Historia ecclesiastica Horae semiticae. 9 vols. London, 1908–1912 Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

abbreviations HTR IGNTP JB JBL JECS JNES JJS JÖAI JPSTC JSJ JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JTS KJV LCC LCL LIMC LSJ LXX MM NCB NA27 NewDocs NICNT NIV NovT NovTSup NRSV NTAbh

xxi

Harvard Theological Review International Greek New Testament Project Jerusalem Bible Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Instituts Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Theological Studies King James Version (Authorized Version) Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia, 1953– Loeb Classical Library Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. Edited by H. C. Ackerman and J.-R. Gisler. 8 vols. Zurich, 1981–1997 Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 Septuagint (Greek OT) J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London, 1930. Reprint, Peabody, Mass., 1997 New Century Bible Novum Testamentum graece, Nestle-Aland, 27th ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Edited by G. H. R. Horsley and S. Llewelyn. North Ryde, N.S.W., 1981– New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Version Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements New Revised Standard Version Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

xxii NTOA NTS NTTS OECS Payne Smith PETSE PG PNTC PNTTC

PO PW PWSup Quasten RB REB RefR REG ResQ RevQ RGG RSV RV SAOC SBLRBS SBLSCS SC SD SecCent SECT SEG

abbreviations Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies Oxford Early Christian Studies Thesaurus syriacus. Edited by R. Payne Smith. Oxford, 1879– 1901 Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile Patrologia graeca [= Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886 Pelican New Testament Commentaries Eldon J. Epp. Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism. Collected Essays, 1962–2004. NovTSupp 116. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Patrologia orientalis Pauly, A. F. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New edition G. Wissowa. 49 vols. Munich, 1980 Supplement to PW Quasten, J. Patrology. 4 vols. Westminster, 1953–1986 Revue biblique Revised English Bible Reformed Review Revue des études grecques Restoration Quarterly Revue de Qumran Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by K. Galling. 7 vols. 3d ed. Tübingen, 1957–1965 Revised Standard Version Revised Version Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Series Sources chrétiennes. Paris: Cerf, 1943– Studies and Documents The Second Century Studies in Epistemology and Cognitive Theory Supplementum epigraphicum graecum

abbreviations SH SJT SNTSMS SP STDJ STPatr TDNT

THKNT TLG

TNIV TR TS TU TynBul UBS4 VC VE WBC WH WTJ WUNT ZNW ZPE

xxiii

Subsidia Hagiographica Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra pagina Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia Patristica Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–1976 Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Thesaurus linguae graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works. Edited by L. Berkowitz and K. A. Squitier. 3d ed. Oxford, 1990 Today’s New International Version Textus Receptus Theological Studies Texte und Untersuchungen Tyndale Bulletin The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 4th revised ed., 2001 Vigiliae christianae Vox evangelica Word Biblical Commentary Westcott-Hort Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestemantliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon1 Larry W. Hurtado, University of Edinburgh It has been clear for some time that the second century was a (indeed, perhaps the) crucial period in the development of the New Testament. The individual writings that comprise the New Testament were all, or nearly all, written across the latter half of the first century; but the second century is the period in which most of them came to hold a special significance, at least for the great majority of Christian circles. Facilitating and reflecting this, the second century was the time when these writings were copied and disseminated widely. It is all the more frustrating, however, that the extant evidence from the period is almost in inverse relation to its importance. Nevertheless, this importance demands and justifies our efforts to take stock of what we can say, and with what confidence, about the New Testament writings in the second century. In what follows, I make a modest effort toward this end by 1 An earlier version of this essay was given as an invited presentation in the New Testament Textual Criticism program unit of the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 17–20 November 2001, Denver, USA. I particularly acknowledge critical interaction with William L. Petersen then and subsequently in clarifying the discussion of Patristic citation of New Testament writings, though I must take sole responsibility for the views I offer here. James Kelhoffer also kindly read an earlier draft and gave helpful suggestions.

3

4

hurtado

underscoring three crucial processes in this period, which also constitute three major areas of scholarly inquiry and controversy: 1) the textual transmission of the New Testament writings, 2) the phenomenon of early collections of writings (esp. the Gospels and Pauline epistles); and 3) certain writings coming to enjoy a special status, authority, and usage, which seems to be the crucial earlier stage of a process that led eventually to a fixed, closed canon of the New Testament. I shall survey these matters in the light of current scholarly debates and recently available evidence (e.g., the most recent Oxyrhynchus volumes). My aim here is not to provide some definitive treatment of any of the data or the issues, but rather to emphasize the importance of these three processes or dynamics, thereby to help to focus further thinking about them.

Textual Transmission of the New Testament Writings First, what can we say about the transmission of the text of the New Testament in the second century? Some scholars emphasize and allege great fluidity and freedom in this period, in some cases so much that the extant manuscripts are alleged to be seriously unreliable for reconstructing the “original” of New Testament writings, whereas others contend that the manuscript evidence shows sufficient usefulness to encourage this text-critical effort.2 Some see the undeniable textual fluidity as indicative that the writings held something considerably less than scriptural significance, whereas others argue that it shows the opposite. As is reasonably well known, the two main types of evidence that have been used in forming our views of the transmission of New 2 Helmut Koester, “The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century,” in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission (ed. W. L. Petersen; Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 19–37, contends that the second century was completely a period of wild variation until sometime near 200 CE when he proposes that a textual recension was undertaken, from which our extant New Testament manuscripts all derive. Note also the recent problematizing of the task of reconstructing an “original” text of the New Testament writings: Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” HTR 92 (1999): 245–81; reprinted and updated in PNTTC, 551–93.

New testament in the second century

5

Testament writings in the second century are, first, the extant manuscripts from that time and early centuries thereafter, and, second, the citations/quotations of New Testament writings by second-century Christian authors.3 Let us look briefly at the latest developments in these bodies of evidence. As for the manuscripts of New Testament writings, there is both bad news and good news. The well-known bad news is that the extant manuscripts that can plausibly be dated to the second century are lamentably few in number, and none of them gives us a complete text of any New Testament writing. In fact, the extant second-century manuscript evidence consists largely in a handful of incomplete single leaves, though they collectively derive from a number of manuscripts. Even if we accept Skeat’s argument that P64, P67, and P4 all represent the same multi-gospel manuscript from the late second century, the amount of text preserved in the total body of second-century manuscript material is still frustratingly small.4 The earliest manuscripts that give us substantial portions of texts are dated palaeographically to the early third century or thereabouts. P45 (Gospels and Acts) and P46 (Pauline epistles) date from ca. 200–250 CE; Gospels codices P66 and P75 from ca. 200 CE; P47 (Revelation) ca. 250–300 CE; and P72 ( Jude and 1–2 Peter) third to fourth century CE.

3 See now esp. Barbara Aland, “Die Rezeption des neutestamentlichen Textes in den ersten Jahrhunderten,” in The New Testament in Early Christianity (ed. Jean-Marie Sevrin; BETL 86; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 1–38. Stuart R. Pickering has complained about inadequate attention given to the potential importance of quotations and allusions to passages in New Testament writings in early papyri: “The Significance of Non-Continuous New Testament Materials in Papyri,” Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts. The Papers of the First Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (ed. D. G. K. Taylor; TS 3/1; Birmingham: University Press; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 121–41. 4 T. C. Skeat, “The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?” NTS 43 (1997), 1–34, reprinted in, The Collected Biblical Writings of T. C. Skeat (ed. J. K. Elliott; NovTSup 113; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 158–92; also Graham N. Stanton, “The Fourfold Gospel,” NTS 43 (1997), 317–46, reprinted (with light revision) in ibid., Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 2004), 63–91. But cf. Peter M. Head, “Is P4, P64 and P67 the Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels? A Response to T. C. Skeat,” NTS 51 (2005), 450–57.

6

hurtado

Newly Published Manuscripts On the other hand, the good news is that the small fund of secondcentury and/or early third-century manuscript witnesses has been enriched with the publication of three recent volumes of the Oxyrhynchus papyri. Volumes 64–66 give us previously unknown New Testament papyrus materials that comprise leaves from seven manuscripts of Matthew, four of John, two of Revelation, and one each of Luke, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, and James, the dates ranging from the second century to the fifth or sixth century CE.5 The earliest are leaves of three manuscripts of Matthew dated to the second or early third century: P.Oxy. 4405 (a new portion of P77, containing Matt 23:30– 34; 35–39, second/third century), P.Oxy. 4403 (P103, Matt 13:55–56; 14:3–5, second/third century), P.Oxy. 4404 (P104, Matt 21:34–37, 43, 45, late second century). Prior to the publication of these fragments, per NA27, the only second-century manuscripts available were the famous P52 (P.Ryl. 457, John 18:31–33, 37–38), P90 (P.Oxy. 3523, John 18:36–19:1; 19:2–7), and P98 (P.IFAO 237b, Rev 1:13–20). Even if we add in the recently posited manuscript combination of P4-P64-P67 mentioned already, and grant the proposal that the manuscript dates from the late second century, and if we also add New Testament papyri usually dated ca. 200 CE, such as P66, P75, P46, it is still clear that the 5 The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London: British Academy for the Egypt Exploration Society): Volume LXIV, ed. E. W. Handley et al., 1997, has P.Oxy. 4401–06 (pp. 1–13, ed. J. David Thomas); Volume LXV, ed. M. W. Haslam et al., 1998, has P.Oxy. 4445–48 (pp. 10–20, ed. W. E. H. Cockle), and P.Oxy. 4449 (pp. 20–25, ed. R. Hübner); Volume LXVI, ed. N. Gonis et al., 1999, has P.Oxy. 4494–95 (pp. 1–5) and P.Oxy. 4497–98 (pp. 7–10, ed. Cockle), P.Oxy. 4496 (pp. 7–10, ed. Tim Finney), P.Oxy. 4499 (pp. 10–35, ed. J. Chapa), and P.Oxy. 5000 (ed. Cockle). These comprise a new portion of P77 (P.Oxy 4405 is part of the same codex as P.Oxy 2683) and several newly identified manuscripts assigned New Testament papyri numbers P100–115. Basic information and images on the Oxyrhynchus web site, online: http://www.papyrology. ox.ac.uk. See esp. the valuable discussion by Peter M. Head, “Some Recently Published New Testament Papyri from Oxyrhynchus: An Overview and Preliminary Assessment,” TynBul 51 (2000), 1–16, which includes ample citation of other relevant publications; and J. K. Elliott, “Five New Papyri of the New Testament,” NovT 41 (1999), 209–13, reviews the New Testament fragments in Volume 65 of the Oxyrhynchus series, and focuses almost entirely on what readings they contain.

New testament in the second century

7

very recent Oxyrhynchus fragments add significantly to a very limited body of manuscript material for the second century. Moreover it is further good news that, although comprising a small amount of the text of New Testament writings, these fragments are actually rich with data. From my own consultation of the relevant Oxyrhynchus volumes and from Peter Head’s valuable survey of these fragments, I mention a few illustrative matters. First, though we have in each case only a small sample of the manuscript from which they come, in general these fragments “confirm the text of the great uncials which forms the basis of the modern critical editions.”6 In the main, they provide us with earlier attestation of variants that we already knew of from later witnesses. In some cases, however, these are variants previously attested only in the versions, which warns us that in a good many other cases as well readings presently supported only in the versions may well reflect very early readings that simply happen not to have survived in the extant Greek witnesses.7 But the larger point is that these fragments further encourage us to think that the more substantial witnesses from the third century and later are (contra Koester) probably not the results of some supposed major recension of New Testament writings initiated toward the end of the second century.8 Instead, the Oxyrhynchus fragments further justify the view that the more substantial early third-century papyri are reliable witnesses of the text of the writings that they contain, as these writings had been transmitted across the second century. Second, these fragments also reinforce the impression given by the New Testament papyri from 200 CE and a bit later that there were varying scribal tendencies operative in the textual transmission of the New Testament in the second century.9 That is, the recently-published 6 Head, “Some Recent Published New Testament Papyri from Oxyrhynchus,” 16. 7 Perhaps the most significant variant is in P.Oxy. 4445 (P106) at John 1:34, ο εκλεκτος where most witnesses, including P66 and P75 read ο υιος. P106 here gives early support for a reading found also in Sinaiticus (original hand), later minuscules (77, 218), Old Latin manuscripts (b, e, ff2*), and the Old Syriac (syrs, c). See Head, “Some Recently Published New Testament Papyri,” 11. 8 Koester, “Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century,” 19–37. 9 See esp. James R. Royse, “Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri,” (Th.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, 1981); idem,

8

hurtado

evidence is consistent with the view that the second century was a time of somewhat diverse textual dynamics. To quote from Head’s survey, the fragments “illustrate various points along the spectrum from more controlled texts (with corrections, literary features, etc.) to comparatively more free or careless copying.”10 We are thereby further warned against over-simplifications about the textual transmission of New Testament writings in the second century. Instead, with enhanced confidence we may take up Epp’s proposal that the early New Testament papyri can be placed in several early “clusters” or “textual groups,” and that these represent different “textual complexions” already operative in the second century. Some of the newly published fragments reflect a concern for “a high degree of accuracy,” and others indicate a freer readiness to adapt the text, exhibited especially in stylistic changes, harmonizations, higher numbers of accidental changes, and even occasional changes motivated by doctrinal concerns.11 To avoid misunderstanding in this controversial matter, I emphasize my point. I do not deny at all that there was (perhaps considerable) fluidity in the transmission of the New Testament writings in the second century.12 I simply stress that along with a readiness of some (perhaps even most) scribes to introduce variants intended to harmonize the Gospels, remove ambiguities, affirm doctrinal concerns, and even introduce new material intended as edifying, in at least some circles “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes , eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (SD 46; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 239–52. 10 Head, “Some Recently Published New Testament Papyri,” 10. 11 Epp, “The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission,” in Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (SD 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 274–97; reprinted and updated in PNTTC, 345–81. See the somewhat similar categories proposed by B. Aland, “Die Rezeption des neutestamentliches Textes,” 26–27. 12 The so-called “Western text” is perhaps the most striking expression of the fluidity in textual transmission in this early period. But it appears that the “Western text” is probably more a body of readings produced by somewhat similar scribal tendencies, rather than a cohesive recension. For a recent study, see, W. A. Strange, The Problem of the Text of Acts (SNTSMS 71; Cambridge: University Press, 1992).

New testament in the second century

9

there also appears to have been a somewhat more conservative copying attitude. In addition to their readings, however, the small but fascinating body of early papyri gives us other valuable evidence that should not be overlooked. New Testament scholars, including text critics, have tended to comb early manuscripts for readings; but we also must learn to harvest the fuller and more diverse data that lie in these valuable artefacts.13 For example, the corrections in P.Oxy. 4403 (P103) and P.Oxy. 4405 (P77) are noteworthy. The quality of the hands suggests that these manuscripts were not produced by professional calligraphers such as those who made expensive copies of literary texts. Nevertheless, along with some other features, these corrections reflect the sort of mentality (though not the fully developed scribal skills) that we associate with a scriptorium. In particular, the corrections show a concern for what those correcting the copies regarded as accurate copying. Of course, we must be careful to avoid anachronism in positing too confidently formal scriptoria early in the second century, at least in the sense of the sort of physical settings in which multiple copies of Christian writings were prepared in later centuries.14 Nevertheless, there are various indications that the copying of early Christian texts in the second century involved emergent scribal conventions that quickly obtained impressive influence, and, at least in some cases and settings, that there was a concern for careful copying.15 To cite one particular matter, where these new fragments preserve 13 Günther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1953), is a classic study of P46 that demonstrates a fuller use of the data available in the early papyri. Among studies of the major codices, D. C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text (Cambridge: University Press, 1992), is a model. For fuller elaboration of this approach, see Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). 14 E.g, see Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1995), 120–23; Kim HainesEitzen, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: University Press, 2000), 83–91. Part of the difficulty in the issue is that scholars are not always clear as to what they mean by “scriptorium.” 15 E.g., see G. Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, esp. 263–83.

10

hurtado

the words known to us as nomina sacra, particularly the four words θεος, κυριος, χριστος, and ιησους, these words are written in the sorts of abbreviated forms that we already know from other ancient Christian manuscripts.16 The minor variations in the precise spelling of the abbreviations do not rightly count against the conclusion that there was a widely attested convention among Christian scribes that certain religiously “loaded” words were to be written in a distinctive manner.17 Insofar as earliest Christian manuscripts were not copied by “professional” scribes (or at least often do not exhibit the kind of calligraphy more characteristic of professionally produced literary manuscripts of the period), such widespread and distinctive scribal conventions are all the more notable. It is also significant that all of these fragments come from codices. Thus, they collectively reinforce the conclusions drawn from previously known evidence that, by sometime early in the second century at the latest, Christians overwhelmingly had come to prefer the codex, especially, it appears, for their scriptures (ΟΤ) and the Christian writings that were coming to be treated widely as scripture.18 The only extant 16 Unfortunately, the fragments dated to the second century (P.Oxy. 4405/P77; P.Oxy. 4403/P103; and P.Oxy. 4404/P104) do not preserve portions of text where the words in question would have occurred. But newly published third-century fragments do: P.Oxy. 4449/P100, P.Oxy. 4401/P101, P.Oxy. 4445/P106, P.Oxy. 4447/P108, P.Oxy. 4495/P111, P.Oxy. 4497/P113, P.Oxy. 4498/P114, P.Oxy. 4499/P115. See the table of features in P. Head, “Some Recently Published New Testament Papyri,” 5. On the nomina sacra, see esp. Colin H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. The Schweich Lectures 1977 (London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1979), 26–48. For a full discussion and bibliographic references, see Hurtado, “The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal,” JBL 117 (1998), 655–73; also idem, Earliest Christian Artifacts, Chapter 3. 17 Thus, I do not find Haines-Eitzen’s effort to minimize the significance of the nomina sacra persuasive: cf. Guardians of Letters, 91–96. 18 Cf. P.Oxy. 4443, a fragment of Greek Esther dated to the late first or early second century CE, a roll (“a luxurious copy”), and with at least one occurrence of an uncontracted θεος (plus two other cases proposed for lacunae), which rightly led the editors to assign the manuscript to a Jewish provenance (The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume LXV, ed. M. W. Haslam, 4). E.g., see also the Oxyrhynchus manuscripts of Gospel of Thomas, one of which is a codex (P. Oxy. 1), and the other two (P.Oxy. 654 and 655) rolls, one of these (P.Oxy. 654)

New testament in the second century

11

examples of Christian texts written on unused rolls (as distinguished from re-used rolls, “opisthographs”) are theological tractates (e.g., Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses), and writings that may have been regarded as edifying in some circles but did not gain acceptance as part of the emergent New Testament canon.19 These new Oxyrhynchus fragments of New Testament writings also exhibit various aids to reading, such as rough-breathing marks, punctuation, and, a matter of particular significance, occasional spacing at the ends of sentences and perhaps paragraphs.20 These readers-aids are very unusual for literary texts of the period, but there are some similarities to pre-Christian Jewish manuscripts of the ΟΤ writings (e.g., P.Ryl. 458). The most cogent inference is that the Christian manuscripts with these various scribal devices were prepared for ease of public reading in churches. That is, these small fragments probably give us further important artefactual evidence confirming second-century reports (e.g., Justin Martyr) of the liturgical practice of reading these New Testament writings.21 Though inadequately noticed, such evidence was already provided in previously available fragments such as the famous fragment of the Gospel of John, P52 (P.Ryl. 457), which exhibits diaeresis and curious spaces that seem to register clauses, places where the “public” readers were possibly intended to make small pauses.22 an opisthograph written on the reverse side of a land register. 19 E.g., P.Oxy. 3405 (van Haelst 671) is a late second or early third-century roll of Irenaeus, Adversus haereses as is the fourth-century copy, van Haelst 672. The Fayoum fragment (P.Vindob. G. 2325; van Haelst 589) is a roll. P.Oxy. 654 (van Haelst 593) is an opisthograph, but P.Oxy. 655 (van Haelst 595) is another copy of Gospel of Thomas written on a fresh roll. P.Mich. 130 (van Haelst 657) is a late second-century opisthograph of Shepherd of Hermas, whereas P.Berlin inv. 5513 (van Haelst 662, third-century) is another copy of Hermas on a roll. 20 Again, I refer to the table in Head, “Some Recently Published New Testament Papyri,” 5. Further details are given in the relevant Oxyrhynchus volumes. See also Epp, “The New Testament Papyri at Oxyrhynchus in their Social and Intellectual Context,” in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical. Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda (eds. W. L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge; NovTSup 89; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 47–68 (reprinted and updated in PNTTC, 497–520). 21 E.g., see Gamble, Books and Readers, 205–08, 211–31. 22 Diaeresis in recto lines 1 and 2, and verso line 2; spacing recto lines 2

12

hurtado

It is an unfortunate weakness in Kim Haines-Eitzen’s recent (and in a number of other matters, very helpful) study of early Christian scribal practice that she rather too simply assumes the general literary practice of making private copies for personal usage as the operative setting and model for the production of all early Christian manuscripts. I think that she gives inadequate attention to strong indications that a good many Christian manuscripts were prepared for groups and for reading out as liturgical texts.23 In the following paragraphs, I cite briefly the important matters. Already by the date of our earliest extant evidence, Christians had come to prefer a distinguishable book-form (the codex) over against the wider preference of their culture for the book-roll. The Christian preference for the codex seems to have been especially strong in copying their most revered writings, those that were regarded as scripture and/or were coming to be so regarded. As we have noted, Christians also developed distinctive scribal practices, among which the nomina sacra are the most striking, but including also the richer use of punctuation and spacing. They read texts, not simply privately or in the sort of reading circles of the cultured elite, but also, very importantly and characteristically, as a regular part of their liturgical practice and thus as a feature of their gathered worship. In this they differed from the literary and religious practices of the larger culture. Reading texts does not typically feature in cultic practices/settings, and, in any case, literary texts did not get this kind of usage. The only precedent and analogy for the early Christian religious usage of texts was in the reading of scripture as part of Jewish synagogue practice. All this cumulatively signals what must be seen as the emergence of an identifiably and somewhat distinctive Christian literary ethos. Indeed, in an essay in the Peter Richardson Festschrift I have proposed that the early and 3, and verso line 2. C. H. Roberts commented on the spacing he found in P.Ryl. 458 (Greek Deuteronomy, second century BCE) at the ends of sentences or clauses and groups of words, noting how unusual such spacing was, and also that a similar system might be identified in P52 (“Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester,” BJRL 20 [1936], 219–36, esp. 226–27). 23 Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters. For a broader and more fully nuanced treatment of the production and use of early Christian texts, see esp. Gamble, Books and Readers.

New testament in the second century

13

Christian manuscripts offer us our earliest indications of an emergent Christian “material culture.”24 The reason I underscore these matters is that there is increasing recognition that the repeated liturgical reading of New Testament writings is an important factor in the textual transmission of these texts. It certainly helps to account for the obviously frequent copying and wide dissemination of these writings, which goes far beyond anything else in antiquity. Furthermore, liturgical usage is one of the factors that would have helped to prompt the sort of small stylistic “improvements” intended to make texts clearer and easier to understand that are so well known in Christian manuscripts. The regular liturgical reading of the four canonical Gospels also helps to account for the abundance of harmonizing variants, especially frequent in Mark. But repeated public reading of New Testament writings would also have set real limits on how much a writing could be changed, at least in a given circle, without people noticing (and probably objecting), as anyone familiar with what happens when liturgical changes are introduced can attest. It is, thus, likely not a coincidence that Mark, which appears to have been the least widely and frequently used in liturgical reading, also exhibits the largest number and the most salient variations (especially, of course, the several endings). By contrast, the Gospel most widely used in the early church, Matthew, has probably the most stable and fixed text. That is, the practice of repeated liturgical reading of New Testament writings is yet another factor that ought to lead us to hesitate to characterize the second century as basically a period of “wild” textual tendencies. Along with the surprisingly well-attested preference for the codex and the ubiquitous scribal treatment of the nomina sacra, the practice of liturgical reading of writings provides us with indications of conventionalization of practice with regard to these writings at a chronological stage of early Christianity to which we are otherwise accustomed to attributing great diversity. It is certainly the case, however, that we have not adequately 24 Hurtado, “The Earliest Evidence of an Emerging Christian Material and Visual Culture: The Codex, the Nomina Sacra and the Staurogram,” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson (eds. Stephen G. Wilson and Michel Desjardins; Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000), 271–88.

14

hurtado

mined all that is provided to us in the early papyri, whether those that have been known for some time or those newly published. There are some valuable research projects here. For example, Harry Sanders noticed long ago that Codex W (the four Gospels) exhibited a system of spacing of sense-units that corresponded with versional evidence, and proposed that this might reflect “an ancient system of phrasing, used in reading the Scriptures in church service,” whose origin “must have been as early as the second century.”25 The spacing found in early papyri that have appeared subsequently seems to support Sanders’ suggestion. Already in the second century there appears to have been an embryonic system of subdivision of the texts of the gospels that probably reflected and supported the practice of gospel readings as part of Christian worship gatherings.26 But it remains for us to mine the relevant material on this and other intriguing matters. Prospective doctoral students, take note!27

Second-Century Citations The other major body of data that has often been taken as giving evidence about the transmission of the New Testament writings in the second century is the citations/quotations in second-century Christian writers.28 In very basic terms, examination of second-century Christian 25 H. A. Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection, Part I, The Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1912), 14. 26 See further Victor Martin’s discussion of spacing signalling subdivisions in P66: Papyrus Bodmer II, Evangile de Jean chap. 1-14 (Cologny-Genève: Bibliothèque Bodmer, 1956), 18–21. 27 Note the new series, “Pericope: Scripture as Written and Read in Antiquity,” established in 2000, and published by Van Gorcum (Assen, Netherlands) under the editorship of Marjo Korpel (Utrecht) et al., which focuses on scribal “unit delimitation” in biblical manuscripts (Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin). 28 Studies include Donald A. Hagner, “The Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr,” in Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (ed. David Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 233–68; A Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905); Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern (TU 65; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957); Édouard Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of St. Matthew on

New testament in the second century

15

writers indicates few explicit citations of New Testament writings; and, where it is clear or highly likely that a New Testament writing is quoted, the quotation often exhibits curious differences from the text of the writing that is dominant in the extant manuscripts. To be a bit more precise, these things tend to be comparatively more characteristic of Christian writers of the first half of the second century. Noting this, Barbara Aland has proposed that in the latter half of the second century we see the emergence of a “text-consciousness” that is reflected in a more frequently explicit (named) and exact citation of New Testament writings. This increased “text-consciousness,” she proposes further, may have developed as a result of two major processes: 1) second-century controversies over Christian faith that involved questions about the wording of texts (e.g., Marcion), and 2) the prolonged effect of repeated liturgical reading of certain texts.29 As noted earlier, Koester, and William Petersen also, in particular have argued that the loose and fluid wording of the quotations of New Testament writings in early second-century authors means that the text of New Testament writings was then considerably more fluid than is reflected in the extant manuscripts.30 Indeed, they have contended that the evidence of the early citations should be preferred over the extant manuscripts of the New Testament writings in characterizing their textual transmission in the second century. But, as Barbara Aland complained in her 1989 essay, the analysis of second-century Christian citations has tended too much to proceed with insufficient attention to the wider literary practices of the time.31 That is, the import of the Christian Literature Before St. Irenaeus. Part 1. The First Ecclesiastical Writers (trans. Norman J. Belval and Suzanne Hecht; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1990); Arthur J. Bellinzoni, “The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century,” SecCent 9 (1992): 197–258; idem, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr (NovTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1967). 29 B. Aland, “Die Rezeption des neutestamentlichen Textes,” 5–21. 30 Koester, “The Text of the Gospels in the Second Century;” Petersen, “What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach?” in New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History: A Discussion of Methods (eds. B. Aland and J. Delobel; Kampen: Kok-Pharos, 1994), 136– 52; idem., “The Genesis of the Gospels,” in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel (ed. Adelbert Denaux; BETL 161; Louvain: Peeters, 2002), 33–65. 31 B. Aland, “Die Rezeption des neutestamentlichen Textes,” 2–3.

16

hurtado

citation practices reflected in early second-century Christian authors may not be as obvious or as decisive as has sometimes been assumed. We still do not have the thorough-going “history of citation in antiquity” that Eduard Norden urged long ago.32 But we do have Christopher Stanley’s valuable study of the citations of Οld Τestament writings in Paul, in which Stanley includes a comparative analysis of the citation of sources in selected early Roman-era pagan writers and in Jewish writings of the period.33 Stanley shows that in Jewish, pagan and Christian writers of the time, the citation of known written sources is impressively free and adaptive. Writers omit words, phrases and whole lines that they deem superfluous or problematic for their own rhetorical aims; and they also add or substitute words and phrases to serve as “interpretive renditions” of the material cited, making the material fit more closely with the context of the text in which the citation is appropriated. Likewise, authors frequently combine and conflate material from different contexts of a cited work and/or from different works. So, in general, the citation practices and techniques that we can observe in the early second-century Christian writers are not very different from the flexible treatment of written sources in the New Testament and in the broader literary culture of the time. That the wording of these citations is often not attested in any of the extant copies of the cited works suggests that authors exercised a certain freedom in amending what they cited. The differences between citations and the texts of the sources cited often seem to be, not simply the products of imprecise memory, but instead deliberate, sometimes artful adaptations. Moreover, the confidence with which authors made these adaptations of widely-known sources suggests that they wrote for readers who accepted such freedom as a legitimate convention in the literary culture of the time. That is, readers familiar with the sources being cited would likely have recognized the adaptations. They would have objected to them only if they dissented from the point being made by the author doing the citation. 32 Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (repr.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1958), 1:88–90. 33 Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 74; Cambridge: University Press, 1992). See esp. “Citation Technique in GrecoRoman Literature” (267–91), and “Citation Technique in Early Judaism” (292–337).

New testament in the second century

17

Moreover, Stanley cogently observed that it is overly simplistic to imagine that ancient authors only either cited a work open before them or else worked from memory or “oral tradition.” There is impressive evidence, particularly the use of combined and conflate citations, to suggest that authors often worked from written compilations of excerpts from one or more sources, these compilations probably arranged topically. Furthermore, Stanley proposes that the alterations that we see in the cited material may often have been made at the point of making the excerpt. That is, authors likely combed relevant sources looking for excerpts on some topic and/or in search of support for some point that they wished to make. And, given that the literary culture of the day fully permitted adaptation of cited material, authors would likely have adapted what they excerpted at the point of compiling excerpts, much in the way researchers today often combine cited material and their own observations in their notes. But was there a fully commensurate freedom in the copying of these writings? To be sure, the extant evidence for the writings cited, whether Greek classics, Old Testament, or New Testament writings, indicates sometimes impressive fluidity, especially in early stages of the textual transmission of these writings.34 But, with a few notable exceptions, the fluidity evidenced in extant manuscripts does not really match the extent of the variations that we see in the citations of these works in the authors of the early Roman period. This all means that we should probably think of the copying of texts and the citation of them as somewhat distinguishable processes with distinguishable sets of conventions. It follows, thus, that it is dubious to take the form of citations as direct evidence of the state of the texts being cited. To come to the point relevant here, I suggest that it is almost 34 Stanley cites Stephanie West, Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer (Papyrologica Coloniensis 3; Cologne: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1967) on the “highly fluid” state of Homeric epics till they were standardized in mid-second century BCE (West, 5–14). Also Qumran studies, e.g., Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible—A New Outlook,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (eds. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975), 321–400; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d ed.; Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), esp. 155–98 show an interesting diversity in the text of the Old Testament writings in the pre-Mishnaic period.

18

hurtado

certainly dubious to play off and privilege citations over against our early manuscript evidence for the New Testament writings. Though they are frustratingly fragmentary, our earliest manuscripts come from within decades of the dates of the early second-century patristic writers (e.g., Justin), and our more substantial manuscripts are roughly contemporary with, or even earlier than, patristic writers of the third century and later. We must reckon with all the relevant evidence in characterizing the transmission of texts in second-century Christianity. A similar cautionary note was sounded several decades ago by Bruce Metzger, who advised that in dealing with patristic citations of New Testament that differ from the textual readings in extant manuscripts “the textual critic must consider whether it was the Father or the scribe of an early copy of the New Testament who was more likely to alter the text.”35 Subsequently, Gordon Fee also demonstrated problems in the use of patristic citations for recovering the New Testament text of their times and locales. Fee showed that Patristic authors can cite the New Testament rather freely, especially in sermons and related writings, whereas in commentaries they adhere more to the wording of the manuscripts available to them.36 If patristic writers so freely adapted the text of New Testament writings in citations, well after the New Testament writings had acquired unquestionably scriptural status and their text was fairly stable, we are warned about taking citations in the writings of second-century authors as direct evidence of the state of the text in their time. On the other hand, we should certainly not ignore patristic citations. In a number of cases they appear to preserve variants otherwise attested only lightly in Greek manuscripts or versions. Therefore, in other cases also where the extant evidence does not allow us to verify matters we may suspect that this is so. Clearly, there was fluidity, sometimes considerable, in the way that the text of New Testament writings 35 Bruce M. Metzger, “Patristic Evidence and the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 167–88 (quotation from p. 183). 36 Fee, “The Text of John in The Jerusalem Bible: A Critique of the Use of Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Epp and Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (SD 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 335–43 (originally published in JBL 90 [1971], 163–73).

New testament in the second century

19

was handled in the second century. All the same, we should not disregard the other indications that among the scribal tendencies of the time there was also, in some cases, a recognizable concern to copy relatively carefully and faithfully.37 But there is a good deal more to be said about what the citations of New Testament writings in second-century authors tell us. My comments here are not intended to pronounce with finality, only to give reason to recognize that previous analyses are not adequate, and to underscore some important questions and issues for further research.38

Collections It is a well-known feature of second-century Christianity that collections of writings that came to be part of the New Testament were formed and circulated. We know that at some point the four canonical Gospels came to be thought of as complementary renditions of the gospel story of Jesus, and came to form a closed circle enjoying distinctive regard in many Christian circles. We know also that collections of Pauline epistles were circulating, probably from the late first century, and were likewise treated as scripture in at least some circles.39 These phenomena are regularly and rightly noted in histories of the New Testament canon. But I propose that these collections constitute a curious and possibly more significant phenomenon than is reflected in the attention usually given to it in scholarly studies. To be sure, these collections contributed to the larger collection that we know as the New Testament canon. But, well before there was a “New Testament” canon or the debates about what it comprised, what was the motivation for establishing such collections of writings, and what function(s) 37 E.g., note the judgment by J. Neville Birdsall in his study of the text of Luke in P75 and P66, “Rational Eclecticism and the Oldest Manuscripts: A Comparative Study of the Bodmer and Chester Beatty Papyri of the Gospel of Luke,” in Studies in New Testament Language and Text. Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday (NovTSup 44; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 39–51. 38 See also James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT 2/112; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), esp. 123–30, in critique of Koester’s methods in assessing use/influence of written sources in second-century writers. 39 See e.g. Gamble, Books and Readers, 99–101.

20

hurtado

were these collections intended to serve? It is remarkable how early these collections of writings appear. Several recent studies agree in pushing back the likely origin of a fourfold Gospels collection to the earliest years of the second century. This scholarly agreement is all the more interesting in that these studies pursue different approaches and questions. Theo Heckel argues that the crucial factor was the production of the familiar form of the Gospel of John in Johannine circles, and Heckel places a four-fold Gospel collection sometime around 120 CE.40 In an astonishingly detailed study of the long ending of Mark, James Kelhoffer argues (persuasively to my mind) that these verses were composed sometime in the first half of the second century, “with confidence,” he judges, ca. 120–150 CE, and that they presuppose a four-fold Gospel collection that had been circulating and given “high respect” for some time previously.41 In a recent study proposing identification of a further fragment of Papias’s comments about the Gospels preserved in Eusebius, Charles Hill contends that Papias knew the four canonical Gospels as a collection sometime ca. 125–135 CE.42 In a recent book Martin Hengel has weighed in strongly in support of an early fourfold Gospel collection as well.43 But perhaps the most programmatic sketch of the case for an early fourfold Gospel collection has been offered by Graham Stanton in his 1996 SNTS Presidential Address.44 Working chronologically backwards from Irenaeus, Stanton concludes that a four-fold Gospel collection was being promoted from sometime shortly after 100 CE, though it took time to win its well-known supremacy. We can also note slightly earlier studies, in particular Bellinzoni’s

40 Theo K. Heckel, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium (WUNT 120; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1999). See the review by Parker, JTS 52 (2001), 297–301; cf. also the review by Kari Syreeni, in Review of Biblical Literature (April 2001). Cited 26 September 2005. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/Reviews/3161471997.html. 41 Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission, esp. 175, and 154–56, 158, n. 4. 42 Charles E. Hill, “What Papias said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment,” JTS 49 (1998), 582–629, esp. 616–17. 43 Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (London: SCM; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000). 44 Stanton, “The Fourfold Gospel.”

New testament in the second century

21

careful analysis of Justin’s use of Jesus’ sayings.45 He showed that Justin likely used compilations of Jesus’ sayings drawn from the written Gospels, almost certainly the three Synoptic Gospels. But Justin’s reference to the liturgical reading of memoirs of “apostles and those who followed them” (Dial. 103.8) suggests strongly that he knew of at least two Gospels attributed to apostles and at least two attributed to others. The most likely conclusion is that Justin refers to our four canonical Gospels as regularly read in worship. As for a collection of Pauline epistles, the evidence points back at least as early. Indeed, David Trobisch has proposed that Paul himself may have compiled the first collection of his own epistles.46 The reference to “all” Paul’s epistles in 2 Pet 3:16 probably takes us back to sometime ca. 100 CE or earlier, although it is impossible to say what the “all” comprised. For, as Gamble notes, it appears that the second-century Pauline collections were of varying dimensions, comprising ten, thirteen, or fourteen letters.47 Marcion’s exclusivist claims for his ten-letter Pauline collection sometime around 140 CE probably presupposes a widespread circulation of Pauline letter-collections already by that point. By ca. 200 CE, however, there was an “apostolikon” category of Christian scriptures, comprising a Pauline collection plus letters attributed to other apostolic figures (esp. 1–2 John, 1 Peter, James). In a sense, then, the New Testament is a collection of prior collections. David Trobisch has proposed vigorously that the New Testament as we know it was compiled as a single editorial project sometime in the mid-second century.48 His argument is most intriguing in 45 Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr. See also Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 360–402. 46 David Trobisch, Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfängen christlicher Publizistik (NTOA 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); also ibid., Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994; repr. Bolivar, Missouri: Quiet Waters, 2001). 47 Gamble, Books and Readers, 59–63, 100. On the impact of Paul, see esp. Andreas Lindemann, “Der Apostel Paulus im 2. Jahrhundert,” in The New Testament in Early Christianity (ed. Jean-Marie Sevrin; BETL 86; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 39–67; idem, Paulus im ältesten Christentum. Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1979). 48 Trobisch, Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments. Eine Untersuchung

22

hurtado

pointing to passages in various New Testament writings that could be seen as intended to cross-reference to, and accredit, other New Testament writings. I am not persuaded that a full New Testament collection such as later came to be preferred was compiled and circulating as early as Trobisch contends. But it may well be that the compilation of early collections of texts, such as a four-fold Gospel and a Pauline lettercollection, did stimulate the composition of other texts and helped to shape their contents, including the embedding of the sorts of intriguing references that Trobisch highlights. Collections also probably had an effect upon the transmission of the text of the component writings. The most dramatic demonstration is, of course, Tatian’s Diatessaron (ca. 172 CE), a thorough adaptation and expansion of earlier harmonizing texts (such as may have been used by Justin).49 It appears that one of Tatian’s added features was a full use of John. I am not persuaded that the few bits of material not paralleled in the extant texts of the canonical gospels are sufficient for the claim that Marcion used any fifth gospel writing. The “long ending of Mark,” as Kelhoffer has powerfully argued, is another striking textual phenomenon reflecting the four-fold Gospel collection. This early addition to Mark appears to draw upon the four canonical Gospels, and no other gospel writing. It shows, too, that the four canonical Gospels were not only collected but also compared with one another, which explains best why someone thought that Mark’s ending was deficient and needed to be augmented along the lines of the other Gospels.50 In numerous smaller variants as well, we can probably see the effects zur Entstehung der christlichen Bibel (Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996); English translation: The First Edition of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 49 See Petersen, “Tatian’s Diatessaron,” in Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 403–30. But I am not so persuaded as Petersen that the Diatessaron incorporated written sources other than the four canonical Gospels. See e.g. Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, 24–26. D. C. Parker, D. G. K. Taylor and M. S. Goodacre argued that the oft-cited Dura fragment is not so clearly a piece of the Diatessaron as scholars have tended to think. (“The Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony,” in Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, 192–228); but cf. Jan Joosten, “The Dura Fragment and the Diatessaron,” VC 57 (2005), 159–75 . 50 Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission, 154–55.

New testament in the second century

23

of a four-fold Gospels collection, especially the many harmonizations of one Gospel to another that I have already mentioned. Clearly, the special recognition given to the four Gospels did not necessarily involve a reluctance to make such “improvements” to their texts. Of course, it is often thought that the Pauline letters exhibit significant evidence of the effects of circulating in/as a collection. If, as is widely thought, 2 Corinthians is a composite writing, might this composition have taken place in some connection with an early Pauline collection? But a collection could dispose some toward shortening texts too. Gamble has argued that a fifteen-chapter version of Romans (and perhaps a fourteen-chapter version as well) was prepared with a view toward wide ecclesiastical circulation, and a Pauline letter collection is the most likely vehicle for this.51 He has also noted evidence suggesting “an early, certainly first-century, effort to overcome the problem [of the particularity of Paul’s letter-destinations] by deleting or generalizing the addresses of some of the letters and sometimes by omitting other locally specific matter as well…”52 The larger question, however, is why such collections emerged at all and became so successfully used. Other letter-collections are a known literary phenomenon in Roman-era antiquity, both in Christian (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch) and pagan circles.53 A Pauline letter-collection is thus not without precedent, though it is still a remarkable development, and perhaps a precedent-setting phenomenon for Christians of the early centuries. But why did a four-Gospel collection emerge so early and manage to have such success? It is obvious that there were concerns about a plural and somewhat divergent testimony about Jesus.54 Marcion is the 51 Gamble, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (SD 42; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977). 52 Gamble, Books and Readers, 60. 53 David E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 170–72, refers to collections of letters of Aristotle, Isocrates, Demosthenes, Apollonius of Tyana, Libanius, Cicero, Pliny the Younger, and the senior Pliny. 54 Oscar Cullmann, “The Plurality of the Gospels as a Theological Problem in Antiquity,” in The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; London/Philadelphia: SCM/Westminster, 1956), 39–54; Helmut Merkel, Die Pluralität der Evangelien als theologisches

24

hurtado

most blatant illustration. But the harmonies, especially Tatian’s Diatessaron, also indicate a certain discomfort with four discrete accounts and in some circles a preference for a more cohesive rendition of Jesus. Why, in particular, did Mark obtain a continuing place in the Gospels collection, when in the eyes of many Christians in the second century Matthew seemed to have superseded it so adequately? Collections of Pauline letters circulating by the late first century might be cited as a precedent and stimulus. But a Pauline letter collection represents one apostolic voice, whereas a collection of Gospels, even the recognizably similar canonical four, embodies a diversity of voices and contents. Trobisch is probably right to see in the four-fold Gospel an early and deliberately “ecumenical” move. Likewise, the inclusion of letters attributed to various apostles in what became the New Testament apostolikon represents a deliberate effort to express and affirm a certain diversity or breadth in what is treated as authoritative.55

Canon The final phenomenon to consider briefly is the emergence of a New Testament canon, which likewise appears to be well on its way by the end of the second century. We can thus look to the second century as the period of the key impetus and of “proto-canonical” developments. In the interests of limited space, I shall simply mention some key matters. Above all, we again must reckon with the practice of liturgical reading. As we know, those writings that contended for acceptance in the canonical decision-making attested in writings from ca. 180 CE onward were those that had already enjoyed widespread inclusion among the texts read in Christian worship gatherings. Those that “made it” the most quickly were those that had the widest usage from the earliest years, and the remaining questions about the rest were settled largely on the basis of whether they had been accepted for liturgical reading sufficiently widely. The earliest precedent and impetus disposing Christian circles to include writings of their own for such liturgical usage were almost und exegetisches Problem in der alten Kirche (Traditio Christiana 3; Bern/ Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1978); idem., Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien. Ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin (WUNT 13; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1971). 55 Trobisch, Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments, 158–60.

New testament in the second century

25

certainly the letters of Paul. They were composed as liturgical texts, to be read out in the gathered assemblies to whom they were originally sent, and were “kitted out” with liturgical expressions to make them fit this setting more readily, especially the well-known letter opening and closing expressions. Moreover, if Colossians is a deutero-Pauline composition, it nevertheless shows that the exchange of Paul’s letters among churches began within the years following his execution (4:16); and, if it is an authentic letter of Paul’s, then the practice was earlier still. As I have indicated already, it appears also that the Gospels that became canonical circulated impressively widely and early. That Mark was used so thoroughly as source and model by the authors of Matthew and Luke shows that Mark circulated influentially in various Christian circles within a short period after its composition. Thereafter, at least to judge from the comparatively greater number of early copies extant, it appears that Matthew outstripped all the others in breadth of usage and frequency of copying. But John too appears to have enjoyed impressive success very early. Heracleon’s commentary, written sometime ca. 150–175 CE, suggests that John had for some time enjoyed scriptural significance in at least some circles.56 (It is noteworthy that we have no such commentary on any Christian writing that did not come to form part of the New Testament.) The various early public-readers aids mentioned earlier as characterizing copies of New Testament writings already in the early second century reflect their usage as liturgical texts. Again, the closest preChristian precedents and analogies for these scribal features are found in Jewish copies of Old Testament scriptural writings that came to be included in the closed canon of Judaism.57 All this early interest in the public reading of certain writings as part of the liturgical life of Christian groups suggests that we might need to re-think the view that it was only in the later decades of the second century that a “text consciousness” came to be influential. We have, perhaps, somewhat romantically regarded the earliest Christian circles as so given to oral tradition that their writings took a distant second place in their values. From the earliest observable years Christianity 56 For a thorough study, see C. E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: University Press, 2004). 57 E.g., see Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 208–17, on scribal practices that can be traced back to pre-Christian manuscripts.

26

hurtado

was a profoundly textual movement. To cite an early indication, although Paul was an intrepid itinerant preacher, and characterized himself primarily as such (Rom 15:17–21), even in his own lifetime his critics referred to the effects of his letters (2 Cor 10:9–11). The production of the deutero-Pauline letters and, indeed, the larger production of pseudonymous letters as well, attest that writings were early an influential mode of Christian discourse, persuasion, and promotion of religious ideas. The reference to “the books and above all the parchments” in 2 Tim 4:13 shows how much Paul was associated with texts in the subsequent circles that revered him. John of Patmos conveyed his colourful visions and words in a text, which he clothed in prophetic authority and for which he demanded respectful reading and copying (Rev 21:18–19). The production of multiple written renditions of Jesus in the first century and onward shows also that texts were an early and favoured mode for transmitting traditions about him. Even earlier than the canonical Gospels, the Q sayings-source illustrates this as well. The continuing proliferation of “gospels” beyond the four that became canonical was apparently already well under way in the second century, and further shows how given to texts early Christian were for circulating their traditions about Jesus. We have, perhaps, read too much into the oft-quoted words of Papias about preferring the reports of “living and surviving” voices over books.58 Papias’ profession simply echoes the sort of claims that ancient historians regularly made for their works, claims that they either were eyewitnesses themselves or had learned of the events they narrate from witnesses.59 That is, Papias’ words do not really represent a preference for oral tradition, but instead reflect the literary conventions of his time, in which one sought authority for one’s written reports through claiming that they rested on authentic witnesses. It is worth noting that this Papias, who supposedly disdained books, is himself reported to have written a five-volume written exposition of the sayings of Jesus. 58 As quoted in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.4. But see L. C. A. Alexander, “The Living Voice: Skepticism Towards the Written Word in Early Christian and in Graeco-Roman Texts,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions (ed. D. J. A. Clines; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 221–47. 59 E.g., see the discussion of Hellenistic historiography by Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 80–83.

New testament in the second century

27

It is true that Christian writers of the decades prior to ca. 150 CE do not characteristically cite texts explicitly in the way that texts are cited much more frequently in subsequent times. But is the practice of the post-150 CE period indicative of an emergent “text consciousness,” or is it more correct to see an emergent author-consciousness? That is, I suggest that what changes in the post-150 CE period is a greater tendency to see texts as the works of authors, and so to cite them as such, rather than simply appropriating the contents of texts. And I further suggest that a major reason for a greater emphasis on texts as products of particular authors is the swirling controversies of the second century over heresies. This led Christians to place greater emphasis on authorship of writings as a way of certifying and/or promoting them. So, for example, whereas the canonical Gospels were composed without the authors identifying themselves, across the second century we see an increasing tendency to attribute and emphasize authorship of writings, including a greater tendency to attribute authorship to writings for which authorship was not an explicit feature of the text (e.g., the canonical Gospels, Hebrews).

Conclusion Given the breadth of phenomena and issues involved in the three processes that I have addressed here, it has been necessary to limit the extent of my discussion of each of them. Where I have taken a position on controversial matters, the unavoidable brevity means that I cannot hope to have persuaded anyone firmly holding another viewpoint. But I have aspired here, not only to review the relevant phenomena and issues, but also to underscore the importance of the second century for the writings that came to comprise our New Testament. I hope also to have helped to dispose scholars of the New Testament, and scholars of the text of the New Testament in particular, to make a full harvest of the materials available for researching how New Testament writings were treated in the second century. Recent studies, and recently available manuscripts and their data as well, provide us with some potentially exciting prospects for further knowledge and insight about this crucial period. More than ever, it is in the interests of any particular question or line of inquiry into the second century that we try to take as much account as we can of the spectrum of questions, issues, and available evidence.

Early Variants in the Byzantine Text of the Gospels Klaus Wachtel, Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung, Münster

“Byzantine Text” When, more than ten years ago, Carroll Osburn published a report on the status quaestionis of research into the lectionary tradition of the Greek New Testament, he observed that the evidence of this large part of the manuscript tradition is presented with deplorable incompleteness in critical editions.1 The first point in his concluding agenda consequently reads: “A critical edition of the lectionary is greatly needed, based on full collations of all lections and direct comparisons of texts rather than variants from a printed text.”2 This situation has not changed since. The present essay may be read as a plea for renewing the efforts at paving a way to a documentation of this unduly neglected class of sources. When we use the term “Byzantine text” we inevitably think of the text form preserved by the majority of all extant manuscripts and are therefore in danger of confusing a text-critical and historical concept 1 Carroll D. Osburn, “The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis (eds. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; SD 46; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995), 61–74. 2 Ibid, 71.

28

early variants in the byzantine gospels

29

with a merely quantitative one. The majority text consists of the majority of readings and passages that have been transmitted without variation. A majority reading is a variant supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts. As a rule, such a reading is attested by the oldest and best as well as by most medieval manuscripts. Normally, there is little reason to doubt that it is also the original reading. Yet when we use the term “Byzantine Text”, we think of those majority readings which differ from other textforms that since Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Hort have been preferred in the process of reconstructing the text to which our manuscript tradition goes back. It is important to note that a special kind of late majority readings is seen to characterize the “Byzantine Text.” The majority of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts were written in the 12th—14th centuries. This should make us aware that it is a misleading generalization to classify the entire Byzantine manuscript tradition on the basis of majority readings from its last phase. In the common historical sense of the word the entire Greek New Testament manuscript tradition since 324 might be called “Byzantine.” Moreover, the true majority text would be attested by the majority of all Greek New Testament manuscripts ever written. What we usually call the “Byzantine Text” is the text of the majority of late Byzantine manuscripts. The following study uses the term “Byzantine Text” in this sense.

A Complex Picture If we study this text and its witnesses, we see that it is not the fixed and uniform entity that the text-type terminology suggests. There are many variant passages where a strong minority of manuscripts that usually witness to the late Byzantine majority text pass down a reading differing from the mainstream. There are about 500 sets of variants to the apparatus of the four Gospels in the UBS4. At 44 of these we find the Byzantine attestation divided. This is the case where “Byzpt”, or “Lectpt” or both occur in the apparatus. It also happens that undivided “Lect” and “Byz” support different readings. “Byz” means the great majority of all Byzantine manuscripts with a continuous text, “Lect” the majority of selected lectionaries together with the lectionary edition published by the Apostoliki

30

Wachtel

Diakonia.3 Johannes Karavidopoulos made the selection of lectionaries for the UBS4 apparatus on the basis of a spot-check conducted under his direction at the Lectionary Research Centre of the University of Thessaloniki.4 A large number of Greek lectionaries of different contents and ages were checked “to ensure a selection representative of the full spectrum,” including “not only the normal Byzantine lectionary text, but also a sampling of those differing from it more or less frequently.”5 For the Gospels, the selection comprises 30 lectionaries. Wherever ten or more differ from the rest, “Lectpt” is used to indicate both groups. The one whose reading was adopted by the Apostoliki Diakonia edition is indicated by “Lectpt, AD”. In 19 of the 44 sets of variants examined for this study, one of the Byzantine variants complements, clarifies or emphasizes an aspect of the other, shorter statement: Matt 6:18; 15:31; 18:11; 22:23 (article); 22:30 (article); 26:27; Mark 1:27 (conflation); 3:7–8; 3:32; 10:2; 10:21; 12:23; Luke 4:4; 11:13; 11:42; 13:35; John 10:8; 10:39; 16:16. Textual extensions of this kind are sometimes likely to be motivated by reminiscences of parallel or similar passages: e.g. Matt 18:11, Mark 3:32. Other cases of probable influence from synoptic or other parallels occur but rarely: e.g. Matt 18:14; Mark 2:9; 10:31. As would be expected, some variation appears to have been caused by vowel interchange (Mark 7:19; John 8:54) or homoioteleuton (Luke 3:33). One of the more significant variants probably goes back to an editorial correction: Γαλιλαίας instead of Ἰουδαίας in Luke 4:44. A large share of the variants within the Byzantine tradition differs in the grammatical form with little or no impact on meaning: Matt 18:15; Mark 2:5; 13:2; Luke 7:45; 8:3; 11:10; 17:3; John 6:23; 8:39; 16:4. The same applies to the exchange of synonyms (Matt 21:29–31; Mark 12:41; Luke 7:11; 8:45; 9:62) or transpositions (Mark 10:36; John 17:14). Most of these variants are inconspicuous and may be explained as having emerged out of the mainstream tradition. Yet it is rare for a reading in part of the Byzantine tradition in general or of the lectionary strand in particular to have no further support from manuscripts that are not closely related to the Byzantine majority text. As a rule, among 3 Θεῖον καὶ Ἰερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον (Athens: Ekdosis Apostolikēs Diakonias tēs Hellados, no date); LectAD and lAD in the sigla of UBS4. 4 See UBS4, 20*–23*, on the lectionary evidence in the apparatus. 5 UBS4, 20*.

early variants in the byzantine gospels

31

the witnesses one finds even one or several of the “noble few” from the 4th century or earlier. This shows that the Byzantine tradition, with its variants, is deeply rooted in the first phase of the manuscript tradition and that early Byzantine variants continued to be transmitted. Consequently we cannot conclude that we are looking at a reading unique to a Byzantine sub-group if the apparatus of our critical editions do not show support from non-Byzantine witnesses. On the contrary, the existence of variants within the Byzantine tradition that have early attestation leads to the conclusion that such attestation of apparently unique readings of a Byzantine sub-group may have been lost. The branching of the lectionary tradition is of particular interest since it may be expected that, because it was read in the liturgy, this kind of text was diligently controlled. At this point we have to take into account the results of the Chicago Lectionary Project, initiated in the 1930s, because it found that a considerable number of variants from the TR occurred in the lectionaries. Several studies and theses emerged from that project, all of which show that evidence from older textual traditions is preserved in the lectionary tradition of the Gospels.6 This evidence is labelled as “Caesarean” or “Neutral” in the old text-type terminology and the Project’s research is based on relatively small selections of manuscripts, but it still makes clear that there is a strand within the lectionary tradition that is older than the manuscripts that preserve it. Three examples will show the general tendency of the results of lectionary collations.

Trends in Collated Lectionary Evidence In one of the essays published by the Chicago research team as Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels, Donald Riddle reports on evidence from seven lectionaries: It is true… that taken as a whole all types of variants, Western, Syrian, and Neutral, are represented in the text of Mark. But what is most striking, when the variants in the Markan week-days are compared with a critical apparatus, is that so far from being orthodox and thus thoroughly medieval in quality, the lectionary text in this area is neutral to a surprising degree.7 6 See the summary of the results in Osburn, “Lectionaries,” 65–67. 7 Donald W. Riddle, “The Character of the Lectionary Text of Mark in

32

Wachtel

On the basis of collations of 86 lectionaries in the Lenten lections James R. Branton found 34 lectionary variants from the TR. He summarizes that, 15 of the 34 variants from Stephanus were read by virtually all Neutral-Alexandrian MSS, a great group of Syrian MSS, with varying numbers of Western and Caesarean MSS… This leaves a total of 14 variants which do not have Neutral-Alexandrian support, and most of these are read by a large number of uncial as well as minuscule MSS.8

In a study of the Saturday/Sunday lections from Luke in 72 manuscripts Bruce Metzger concludes, “when the lectionary text in this area disagrees with the Textus Receptus it almost always agrees with representatives of the Neutral, Western, ‘Caesarean,’ and Byzantine texts.”9 Although the evidence seems to point in different directions, Ernest C. Colwell, in his pivotal article about the Gospel lectionaries, answers the question whether there is a specific lectionary text with the following verdict: Whether a small number of lectionaries are compared in a large number of lections or a large number of lectionaries are compared in a small number of lections, the result is the same: they agree with one another… Such agreement justifies speaking of the text of lectionaries as “the lectionary text.”10

This is a bold statement considering the relatively small number of manuscripts which the Chicago project based its work on, and it can hardly be upheld given the evidence from the lectionaries included in the UBS4 apparatus. It is true that variants supported by a lectionary are very likely to have more lectionary witnesses.11 The average lectionary the Week-Days of Matthew and Luke,” in Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels (eds. Ernest C. Colwell and D. W. Riddle; Chicago: University Press, 1933), 23. 8 James R. Branton, The Common Text of the Gospel Lectionary in the Lenten Lections (Chicago: University of Chicago Libraries, 1934), 24. 9 Bruce M. Metzger, The Saturday and Sunday Lessons from Luke in the Greek Gospel Lectionary (Chicago: University Press, 1944), 66. 10 Ernest C. Colwell, “Method in the Study of Gospel Lectionaries,” in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS 9; Leiden: Brill 1969), 93 (repr. of, “Is There a Lectionary Text of the Gospels?” HTR 25 [1932]: 73–84). 11 There are exceptions—e.g. ℓ844 and ℓ2211 in the Gospels, or ℓ249 and

early variants in the byzantine gospels

33

was certainly copied from another lectionary, thus being part of a tradition of its own. But where the attestation is split it is hard to determine which of the variants represents the main lectionary tradition, simply because the evidence we have at hand is by no means exhaustive. However, we can say that it is usually one strand of the Byzantine tradition at a time that differs from the mainstream. With rare exceptions there are at most two readings with support from groups of Byzantine manuscripts strong enough to be cited by Byzpt or Lectpt. Consequently the entire lectionary tradition may be separated from the rest of the Byzantine tradition.12 A single or a few Byzantine manuscripts may be cited with variants that differ from the one or two of the mainstream readings. But if the lectionary tradition is split into two relatively strong strands, then one of the strands is usually found side by side with Byz, or, if Byz is also split, then Byzpt and Lectpt form pairs. One interesting reference to such passages can be found in a place where one would hardly look for it, namely in the introduction to the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s 1904 edition of the New Testament published by the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Greek Orthodox Church.13 The introduction is entitled, “Introduction of the Synodical Epitropia of the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople (1904),”14 and is signed by the members of the editorial committee, consisting of two Metropolitans, Michael of Sardes and Apostolos of Stavropol, along with B. Antoniades, professor at the Theological School of Chalki, as spokesperson (εἰσηγητής). Antoniades reports that the edition had the goal of reestablishing the old text according to the tradition of the Church of Constantinople. As far as possible, it was based on lectionaries. Essentially 116 lectionaries form the foundation of the edition. Only for those passages that were not part of the lectionary system (the Apocalypse and passages in the Acts of the Apostles) “Byzantine manuscripts” ℓ846 in the Pauline Epistles—but they only confirm the rule. These exceptional lectionaries are cited in NA27 but not in UBS4. 12 See Luke 4:44, where Lect stands against Byz, while a minority of lectionaries supports a third variant. 13 Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη, τὸ πρωτότυπον κείμενον κατὰ τὴν ἔκδοσιν τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου. Athens: Ekdosis Apostolikēs Diakonias tēs Hellados, 1955; repr. 2002. 14 Ibid., 9–14 (translation mine).

34

Wachtel

(ἀπόγραφα βυζαντιακά) containing a continuous text were used. After distinguishing different kinds of lectionaries Antoniades states that there are also textual differences between them. In the Gospel lectionaries, he says, especially in the complete ones that include lessons for all days—and particularly in the Synoptic Gospels—two types of text can be distinguished: “one of them related to the text of the normal Byzantine manuscripts, while the other one, in addition to that relationship, has some variants and remarkable readings, which are not left without attestation from elsewhere but betray copying from other manuscripts.”15 According to the testimony of the lectionaries selected for the edition, both types of text were commonly and officially used by the Church of Constantinople between the 9th and 16th centuries at least. They were preserved so carefully and purely that only a few traces of contamination of one type with the other can be found. The reason for this is seen in the authority of age and authenticity that both types had even before the oldest manuscripts selected for the edition were written. Facing the facts with a certain timidity, Antoniades explains the difference: The type that comes rather close to the Byzantine seems to be identical with the Antiochian or Syrian edition that was disseminated in the Church of Constantinople by St. Chrysostom and afterwards, while the other one is very likely to be the same text that has been in use in this church from the beginning.16

The timidity is evident in the indirect designation of the non-Byzantine type as coming close to (because not being identical with) the Byzantine type. In the list of manuscripts included in the edition,17 those related to the τύπος βυζαντιακὸς are marked with a β. 15 Διακρίνονται δύο τύποι κειμένων, τοῦ μὲν συγγενεύοντος πρὸς τὸ κείμενον τῶν συνήθων βυζαντιακῶν ἀπογράφων, τοῦ δὲ ἑτέρου πρὸς τῇ συγγενείᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἔχοντος καὶ παραλλαγάς τινας καὶ ἀναγνώσεις ἀξιοσημειώτους, ὄχι μὲν ὡς ὅλως ἀμαρτύρους ἄλλοθεν, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ὑπεμφαινούσας ἀντιγραφὴν ἐξ ἑτέρων ἀντιγράφων (ibid., 9; translation mine). 16 Καὶ ὁ μὲν τύπος ὁ μᾶλλον πλησιάζων τῷ βυζαντιακῷ φαίνεται ὢν ὁ αὐτὸς τῇ Ἀντιοχικῇ ἢ Συριακῇ ἐκδόσει, διαδοθείσῃ εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ Χρυσοστόμου καὶ ὕστερον, ὁ δὲ ἕτερος τύπος πιθανώτατα εἶναι ὁ αὐτὸς τῷ κειμένῳ τῷ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἐν χρήσει ὄντι ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ (ibid., 10; translation mine). 17 Ibid., 11–12.

early variants in the byzantine gospels

35

Antoniades then explains the principles followed in establishing the text. Apart from punctuation and orthography, neither transposition nor replacement nor addition nor omission were allowed to prevail against the authority of the manuscripts that the edition was based on, albeit with rare exceptions, if there was sufficient attestation from elsewhere. Where differences between the two text forms were found, the readings of the text attributed to Chrysostom usually were preferred to those of the Byzantine type. The 1904 Patriarchal edition claims to be the result of a revision of the Byzantine—or rather Constantinopolitan—text, guided by the authority of Chrysostom. It is based on a relatively large selection of lectionary manuscripts from which the text of the edition has been methodically chosen. Thus the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s edition meets one requirement to qualify as a critical edition. The second requirement, however, is lacking: a critical apparatus that enables the reader to check the editorial decisions. Consequently the edition has not won much recognition in Western scholarship. John M. Rife, one of the participants of the Chicago Lectionary Project, criticized the edition harshly for its “arbitrariness” in establishing the text.18 His criticism is based on collations of the Patriarchate’s text against the TR, a printed Gospel Lectionary from 1899, and “Colwell’s MSS readings,” i.e. the differences from the TR in 56 lectionaries (at most) which were subjected to analyses in the Chicago project.19 The result is that “it appears that Πτ [= the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s edition] contains a weak lectionary text and may be counted upon in most cases to agree with more than half of the lectionary variants.”20 A look at the sample table of “variants from Stephanus” in the lection for the Monday of the third week of Matthew (Matt 9:36–10:8) shows what Rife is talking about.21 In the sample passage, a majority of the 26 lectionaries included differ from the TR at five out of 25 places of variation. At three of the five, Πτ agrees with the majority of collated lectionaries. One of the remaining two is the lection incipit that 18 John M. Rife, “The Antoniades Greek New Testament,” in Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels, 57–66. 19 These readings are documented in Colwell, “Gospel Lectionaries.” The number of collated lectionaries is specified as “from five to fifty-six” (84). 20 Rife, “Antoniades Greek New Testament,” 64. 21 Ibid., 65.

36

Wachtel

cannot be expected to be reproduced in a continuous text. Yet in the one place (Matt 9:36–10:8) where Πτ reads against the majority it agrees with the TR, alongside one of the 26 lectionaries included. This is a small minority compared to 25 other manuscripts, but hundreds of lectionaries exist that were not included in the Chicago project—thus the one lectionary may well represent a minority strand in the lectionary tradition. This also applies to the 20 other places in the sample passage where small minorities of the 26 included lectionaries support readings differing from the TR and Πτ. At these places Πτ agrees with the majority and with the TR against one or a few of the lectionaries that may themselves represent a minority strand of the tradition. Rife also takes into account that Πτ is in agreement with many of the readings that Donald W. Riddle found in a majority of seven lectionaries that he had collated against the TR in Markan weekday lections.22 Rife calls the character of these variants “strongly neutral.”23 Riddle’s own conclusion is more differentiated. He states that there seems to be an affinity with von Soden’s group Iφ and with the uncials L and Δ, against the “Syrian” mainstream represented by Κ and Π.24 At any rate, the result remains that he found lectionary readings that show a relationship with traditions different from and earlier than the Byzantine mainstream. Thus Rife’s qualification of Πτ as a “weak lectionary text” means only that Πτ does not represent what he expects the text of the majority of lectionaries to be. As far as I know, Rife’s negative judgement has never been called into question.25 But Πτ’s alleged arbitrariness in textual decisions was inferred from evidence coming from collations of 56 lectionaries at most, which is not very likely to be a representative selection of the entire tradition of nearly 2,500 surviving copies. Unfortunately Rife did not try to put the statements made in the 22 Donald W. Riddle, “The Character of the Lectionary Text of Mark in the Week-Days of Matthew and Luke,” in Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text, 21–42. 23 Rife, “Antoniades Greek New Testament,” 64. 24 Riddle, “Character of the Lectionary Text of Mark,” 41–42. 25 Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, “Greek Lectionaries and a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament,” in Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare (ed. Kurt Aland; Berlin: De Gruyter 1972), 486.

early variants in the byzantine gospels

37

preface of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s edition to the test, although the larger part of his contribution consists of a translation of that preface. Rife does not even see the possibility that what appears to be arbitrariness could result from an incompatibility of his testing procedure with the method described in Antoniades’ preface. Rife probably did not have access to the lectionaries mentioned and classified there.26 Most of them are available today at the Münster Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung so that I have been able to run a test involving 12 sample passages that were mentioned in that preface. Additionally, I included eight of the passages where the apparatus of UBS4 indicates that the lectionary witness is split. Antoniades says that one principle he followed was that “the readings of the Byzantine type as a rule gave way to those of the other type,” as in Matt 12:25–27:40; 13:30, 36; 17:22; Luke 21:38.27 Moreover, he mentions πάντων ἐντολὴ in Mark 12:29 as an example illustrating those rare cases where the edition follows other attestation against the included manuscripts, and Γαλιλαίας in Luke 4:44 as an example of a Byzantine reading preferred against the rule.28 The relevant variants are shown in the table at the end of this essay, each with support from printed editions and a selection of 10 lectionaries that are listed by Antoniades. All of them are full Gospel lectionaries comprising weekday lections. The first five (ℓℓ700–1033) are non-Byzantine in the sense in which Antoniades uses the term, the other five (ℓℓ698–1552) are marked with a β here as in Antoniades’ list of included manuscripts. The second part of the table shows the same editions and manuscripts in comparison at a set of eight variant passages at which the Byzantine witness is split according to the apparatus of UBS4. The question here is whether the impression we get from the first part is likely to be confirmed at places of variation not cited by Antoniades. Such a small selection of readings and manuscripts cannot lead to final results, but will hopefully show whether further investigation may be worth the effort. 26 Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη, 11. 27 Αἱ ἀναγνώσεις τοῦ βυζαντιακοῦ τύπου ὑπεχώρησαν κάτα κανόνα ταῖς τοῦ ἑτέρου τύπου, ὑπεχώρησαν δὲ καὶ ἐν Μαθτ. ιβ’ 25–κη’ 40. ιγ’ 30. 36. ιζ’ 22. Λουκ. κα’ 38 (ibid., 12; translation mine). 28 Ibid., 12, 14 (footnote).

38

Wachtel

Summary Analysis of the Collation Table The Collation Table occurs at the end of this essay. At the passages where the editor simply followed the rule that the “non-Byzantine” reading should be preferred, the selected manuscripts in general behave as predicted in the preface, although there are a few exceptions. In the first passage among the quoted examples (Mark 12:25–27) only the reading printed in the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s edition (EP), αὐτοὶ κριταὶ ἔσονται ὑμῶν (n. 3), has precisely the support expected from the manuscripts selected for this test. Moreover, EP agrees with ē B and UBS4 against the majority text here. At variant passages 1 and 2, EP is in agreement with most of the selected manuscripts. At least it is in conformance with the rule that the disagreeing lectionaries are “Byzantine.” At variant passages 6 and 9 the EP reading has the weakest support from the selected “non-Byzantine” lectionaries, but in both cases two of the witnesses are in the right place. With the exception of variant passage 11 (Luke 4:44, the passage where the editors expressly did not follow the general rule) all of the passages taken from Antoniades’ preface (1–12) have one feature in common: the Patriarchal edition adopts a reading different from the one printed in the Apostoliki Diakonia lectionary (ℓAD), which usually is supported by the β-lectionaries. Again, there are exceptions. At variant passage 1, only one lectionary agrees with ℓAD, at passage 2 there are only two. But for the rest of the passages the pattern can be distinguished so clearly that we may conclude that Antoniades refers to a text very similar if not identical with ℓAD as the “normal Byzantine” type of text. It is likely that the support for this text from β-lectionaries appears to be so weak, because our random selection of five is too small to reflect the real proportions. At the two places where the textual decision was taken against the rule (variant passages 10 and 11), the witnesses behave as can be expected from Antoniades’ preface. The reading adopted for EP at Luke 4:44 is not supported by the “non-Byzantine” manuscripts, but by three of the four “Byzantine” lectionaries extant at this passage. At Mark 12:29 the EP reading has support from Codex Alexandrinus, but from none of the included lectionaries. The “Byzantine” and the other manuscripts consistently attest two different readings. Ironically the majority reading (πρώτη πάντων τῶν ἐντολῶν) for which ē is cited in NA27 is supported by the “non-Byzantine” lectionaries, while the

early variants in the byzantine gospels

39

“Byzantine” read πρώτη πασῶν τῶν ἐντολῶν, with the 9th-century majuscule M as the earliest witness, a normalization that was picked up by Κr according to von Soden’s apparatus. Among the passages with split Byzantine witness in UBS4 (passages 13–20) are two (13 and 19) that show support for EP from all lectionaries included for this test. In both cases, there are also lectionaries supporting another reading according to the UBS4 apparatus. Two passages at least (14 and 16) conform perfectly with the pattern described by Antoniades. But at variant passage 20 only two lectionaries of either kind agree with EP, and at passage 15 the lectionaries take turns in supporting the EP reading regardless of their kind. Passage 14 is another example for the affinity of ℓAD to the β-type of text. Yet passage 16 is a counter-example warning against generalizing observations made at the passages indicated by Antoniades.

Conclusions It can be established that there are passages of variation where the lectionary tradition is split as described by Antoniades, although the distinction of the two types is not equally clear at every passage of variation. Our trial collation at passages with a split Byzantine attestation suggests that at some such passages the lectionary evidence complies with Antoniades’ pattern. But there are also cases that do not fit the pattern. Other factors and other groupings seem to play a role in the formation of the lectionary text. More evidence is needed to come to a clearer judgement in this matter. It is certainly true that there is a lectionary text related to the late Byzantine majority text in continuous manuscripts. It can also be said that both forms mostly agree with each other. But the committee that edited the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s 1904 edition, the Chicago Lectionary Project, and Johannes Karavidopoulos’ team at the Thessaloniki Lectionaries Research Centre independently collected evidence showing that variants deeply rooted in the textual history of the first millennium are transmitted as an integral part of the lectionary tradition. There is also evidence that these variants are no occasional results of contamination. They form patterns that can and should be utilized to find strands of lectionary traditions differing from the mainstream. Attestations of variants within the lectionary tradition are so manifold that there is little plausibility in the theory that at the beginning

40

Wachtel

of the lectionary tradition there was one specific text set up for liturgical reading that was then copied as a unity and in the course of its history increasingly brought into agreement with the mainstream. It appears to be more likely that different text forms fed into the lectionary tradition and were carefully copied and “commonly and officially used,” as Antoniades puts it, in spite of being at variance in some passages. At any rate, there can hardly be an adequate documentation of the history of the New Testament text in the first millennium without taking the lectionary tradition into account. None of the projects mentioned above included a sufficient number of documents to provide a basis for final conclusions about the textual history of the Greek New Testament lectionary. Consequently the first step towards an adequate representation of the lectionary evidence in a critical apparatus focusing on lectionary evidence would be a selection of relevant documents on the basis of test passage collations of all copies available today. A good preselection of such passages seems to be offered by the USB4 apparatus where it shows split Byzantine attestation. Passages where the Apostoliki Diakonia lectionary and the 1904 Patriarchal text are at variance may be particularly interesting for the distinction of the two types of text described by Antoniades. Another range of passages for sample collations of the lectionaries may be selected from the test passages that were collated in all continuous text manuscripts for the “Text und Textwert” series.29 Passages at which large minorities of witnesses differ from the mainstream may provide the evidence enabling us to analyse and describe the relationship of the lectionary tradition to that of the full text manuscripts.

29 Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (eds. K. Aland et al.; Berlin: De Gruyter), Vol. 1: Die Katholischen Briefe (1987), Vol. 2: Die Paulinischen Briefe (1991), Vol. 3: Die Apostelgeschichte (1993), Vol. 4: Die synoptischen Evangelien (1998/99), Vol. 5: Das Johannesevangelium, Part 1, Teststellenkollationen der Kapitel 1–10 (2005); Part 2, Vollkollation des Kapitels 18 (forthcoming).

early variants in the byzantine gospels

41

The Collation Table Table 1: Explanation of the Collation Table

Lection: the lection according to the most common system—see Caspar R. Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments I (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1900), 343–86. Other Witnesses: At variant passages without apparatus in UBS4, other editions were used to fill this field in the following order: NA27 Ti: Constantin von Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum graece (Editio octava critica maior; 2 Vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1869–72). vS: Hermann Freiherr von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, Vol. 2, Text mit Apparat (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913). Sw: Reuben J. Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Matthew. Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus (Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 1995).

EP: the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s 1904 edition (see n. 13) L AD: the Apostoliki Diakonia Lectionary edition (see n. 3) Byz, Lect: Where no apparatus is given in UBS4, that reading is marked as “Byz” for which ɽ is cited in NA27 and the field under “Lect” is left blank. Where neither UBS4 nor NA27 show variants in the apparatus, the fields under “Byz” and “Lect” are both left blank. Table 2: Lectionaries Collated for Study Siglum Type Date

Identification

ℓ700

e

XII

Athos, Kutlumusiu 64

ℓ770

e

X

Istanbul, Ecumenical Chalki, Triados 1

Patriarchate,

formerly

ℓ773

e

XI

Istanbul, Ecumenical Chalki, Triados 4

Patriarchate,

formerly

42

Wachtel

Siglum Type Date

Identification

ℓ776

e

XIV

Istanbul, Ecumenical Chalki, Triados 7

ℓ1033

e

1152

Jerusalem, Orthodox Patriarchate, Anastaseos 9 (Βιβλιοθήκης)

ℓ698

e

XIII

Athos, Kutlumusiu 62

ℓ717

e

1559

Athos, Xiropotamu 122 (2684)

ℓ1092

e

XIII

Athos, Lavra A΄ 93

Patriarchate,

formerly

β-type

ℓ1112

e

XIII

Athos, Lavra A΄ 116

ℓ1552

e

985

St. Petersburg, Russ. National Library, Eccl. Academy Б 1/5

Table 3: Signs and Abbreviations used in the Table

— [x] * c om. suppl.

lection not extant reading in square brackets as text of the edition first hand correction omission supplement in the manuscript

43 early variants in the byzantine gospels

Passage–Lection 1 Mt 12:25 – τ. γ΄ τ. ε΄ καθ εαυτην (twice) καθ εαυτης (twice)

Other Witnesses

EP

VIII: L (Ti) x IV: ēB

IV: ē B

x

x

2 Mt 12:27 (1) – τ. γ΄ τ. ε΄ εκβαλοῦσι VIII: L (Ti) x εκβάλλουσι 3 Mt 12:27 (2) – τ. γ΄ τ. ε΄ αυτοι κριται εσονται υμων IV: ē B αυτοι υμων εσονται κριται V: 04

IV: ē B

III/IV: syrs x (vS); IX/X: 1424 (vS)

IV: ē B

4 Mt 12:40 (1) – τ. δ΄ τ. ε΄ εγενετο IX: Θ ην 5 Mt 12:40 (2) – τ. δ΄ τ. ε΄ Ιωνας ο προφητης

Ιωνας

1 εκβαλλοῦσιν

LAD

x

x

x

x

x

Table 4: Collation Table

x

x x

x

x

x

x

—

—

—

—

x

x

x

x

x

x

x1

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

ℓ1112β

x

ℓ1552β

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x1

TR UBS4 Byz Lect ℓ700 ℓ770 ℓ773 ℓ776 ℓ1033 ℓ698β ℓ717β ℓ1092β

x

x

x

x

x

Wachtel 44

Passage–Lection

Other Witnesses

IV: ē B

EP

6 Mt 12:40 (3) – τ. δ΄ τ. ε΄ εσται και III/IV: syrc; x V: D εσται 7 Mt 13:13 – τ. β΄ τ. ς΄ ινα βλεποντες μη βλεπωσι IX/X: 1424 x και ακουοντες μη ακουωσι μηδε συνωσι οτι βλεποντες ου βλεπουσι IV: ē B και ακουοντες ουκ ακουουσιν ουδε συνιουσι

LAD

x

x

x

x

3 …συνιωσι

x

IX/X: 1424 x V: C

8 Mt 13:36 – τ. δ΄ τ. ς΄ οικιαν αυτου οικιαν ο Ιησους

IV: ē B XIII: 579 (Sw)

οικιαν 9 Mt 17:22 – τ. Κυριακῇ ι΄ εις την Γαλιλαιαν εν τη Γαλιλαια

IV: ē B

2 …μη συνιωσι μηδε ακουσωσι

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

—

x

x

suppl.

x

x

x2

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x3

x

x

x

*om.

x

ℓ1112β

x

ℓ1552β

xc

x

x

x

x

om.

x

x

x4

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

TR USB4 Byz Lect ℓ700 ℓ770 ℓ773 ℓ776 ℓ1033 ℓ698β ℓ717β ℓ1092β

x

x

x

x

4 …ακουωντες ουκ ακουωσιν ουδε συνιωσιν

45 early variants in the byzantine gospels

Passage–Lection

Other Witnesses

IX: M (Ti)

V: A C

XI: ƒ13

10 Mk 12:29 – τ. δ΄ τ. ις΄ πρωτη παντων εντολη πρωτη πασων των εντολων

IV: ē B

πρωτη παντων των εντολων πρωτη εστιν

EP

x

x

IV: it; V: A x D III: P75

11 Lk 4:44 – τ. β΄ τ. β΄ της Γαλιλαιας της Ιουδαιας

IX/X: 1424

IV: ē B

V: C*

αυτων 12 Lk 21:38 – τ. Παρασκ. τ. ιβ’ ορει ιερω

5 om. των

LAD

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x5

x

x

x5

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

—

—

—

TR USB4 Byz Lect ℓ700 ℓ770 ℓ773 ℓ776 ℓ1033 ℓ698β ℓ717β ℓ1092β

x

x

x

ℓ1112β

x5

x

x

ℓ1552β

—

x

—

Wachtel 46

Passage–Lection 13 Mt 6:18 – τ. Σαββάτῳ τ. τυρίνης σοι εν τω φανερω σοι 14 Mt 15:31 – τ. παρασκ. τ. ζ΄ κωφους ακουοντας αλαλους λαλουντας κυλλους υγιεις κωφους λαλουντας κυλλους υγιεις 15 Mt 26:27 – τ. ἁγίᾳ κ. μεγάλῃ ε΄ το ποτηριον ποτηριον 16 Mk 3:32 – τ. ε΄ τ. ιγ΄ οι αδελφοι σου οι αδελφοι σου και αι αδελφαι σου

pt

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

ℓ1112β

x

ℓ1552β

x

x

—

x

x

—

x

x

x

x

TR USB4 Byz Lect ℓ700 ℓ770 ℓ773 ℓ776 ℓ1033 ℓ698β ℓ717β ℓ1092β

pt

pt

pt

x

x

x

x

LAD

EP

pt

x

pt

pt

pt

pt

x

pt

pt pt

x

Other Witnesses

x

x

x

[x]

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

IV: it; VIII: x 0233 III: Or; IV: ēB XII: 1071

V: C

III: P45 III: Or; IV: ēB IV: ē B IV: it; V: AD

47 early variants in the byzantine gospels

Passage–Lection 17 Lk 8:45 – τ. κυριακῇ ζ΄ Πετρος και οι συν αυτω

Other Witnesses

EP

x

LAD

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

IV: ē

III: P75

IV: it; V: D

Πετρος και οι μετ αυτου VIII: E 18 Lk 13:35 – τ. παρασκ. τ. η’ οικος υμων ερημος οικος υμων

V: C

19 Jn 8:39 –τ. Σαββάτῳ τ. δ΄ εποιειτε III: P75 εποιειτε αν

IX: Θ

II/III: P66

προ εμου ηλθον

III: P75

20 Jn 10:8 – τ. ε΄ τ. ε΄ ηλθον προ εμου ηλθον

pt

pt

pt

pt

pt

pt

pt

pt

x

x

pt

pt

pt

x

pt

[x]

pt

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x*

xc

x

x

x

ℓ1112β

x

ℓ1552β

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

—

x

TR USB4 Byz Lect ℓ700 ℓ770 ℓ773 ℓ776 ℓ1033 ℓ698β ℓ717β ℓ1092β

x

x

x

x pt

Manuscripts of John’s Gospel with Hermeneiai D. C. Parker, University of Birmingham The phenomenon of sortes sanctorum, ἑρμηνείαι or προσερμηνείαι, as they have variously been called, a system of divination consisting of prophetic sentences written in full or partial copies of biblical texts, was first studied by James Rendel Harris, initially in his monograph on the Codex Bezae, and subsequently at greater depth in The Annotators of the Codex Bezae.1 Harris concentrated his attention on a comparison between the system in Codex Bezae which, uniquely, is found in the margins of Mark’s gospel, and that of the Latin Codex Sangermanensis, the most complete available system. Since 1901, a considerable body of analogous material has come to light. The origin and development of the use of sacred texts in sortilege (including sets of sortes found in the margins of the Psalter) has been explored by van der Horst.2 Those texts to which most attention has been paid include a number of papyri, either Greek or Graeco-Coptic, and manuscripts in Armenian and Georgian.3 Most of the papyri were separately described by B. M. 1 London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1901. 2 P. W. van der Horst, “Sortes: Sacred Books as Instant Oracles in Late Antiquity,” in The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World (eds. L. V. Rutgers et al.; Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 22; Peeters, 1998), 143–73. 3 For a valuable survey, see B. Outtier, “Les Prosermeneiai du Codex Bezae,” in Codex Bezae. Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994 (eds. D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux; NTTS 22; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 74–78, and the

48

manuscripts of john with hermeneiai

49

Metzger.4 They have subsequently been edited with the other Johannine papyri for the International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP).5 In our subsequent work on the parchment manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel, we have examined several more fragments with hermeneiai (one—Gregory-Aland 0210—is also described by Metzger). This paper is not concerned with the hermeneiai, but with the character of the documents as witnesses to the text of the Gospel, and their consequent value for the editor. It is sensible to ask whether, if someone scribbles down a sentence from John, and under it a brief sentence of the kind found in the astrological section of a popular newspaper, we are entitled to find the result of much use for textual criticism, however valuable it may be for other lines of research. Of course, we need also to ask whether “scribbles down a sentence” is a fair description of the process by which these documents were produced. The question which provoked the following survey is this: Can we treat the copies as serious and reliable witnesses to the text of the Gospel of John? To that end, a description of the parchment codices will be offered, followed by an evaluation of all the documents. They are: P55

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Pap. G. 26214

P59

New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, P. Colt 3

P60

New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, P. Colt 46

P63

Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Ägyptische Abteilung, P. 11914

P76

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Pap. G. 361027

P80

Barcelona, Fundació Sant Lluc Evangelista, P. Barc. 83

same author’s “Réponses oraculaires dans des manuscrits bibliques caucasiens,” in Armenia and the Bible. Papers Presented to the International Symposium Held at Heidelberg, July 16–19, 1990 (ed. Christoph Burchard; University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 12; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 181–84. 4 Bruce M. Metzger, “Greek Manuscripts of John’s Gospel with ‘Hermeneiai,’” in Text and Testimony. Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn (eds. T. Baarda et al.; Kampen, 1988), 162–9. 5 W. J. Elliott and D. C. Parker, eds., The New Testament in Greek IV. The Gospel According to St.. John, Vol. 1, The Papyri (ed. by the American and British Committees of the IGNTP; NTTS 20; Leiden: Brill), 1995. 6 Not described by Metzger. 7 Not described by Metzger.

50

parker 0210 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Pap. 3607 and 3623 0302 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Pap. 21315

A justification must be added for the inclusion of P60. Unfortunately no evidence of any hermeneiai survives. However, apart from its very close similarity to P59, with which it was found, two pieces of evidence support the conclusion that it originally did contain them. One is the fact that almost every page begins with a new sentence or idea, sometimes quite a brief one so that there is a blank space below it (such as Fragment X verso).8 The second is that the apparent layout as it may be reconstructed contained enough space for a heading and a hermeneia.9 I have therefore included this document in my survey.

Descriptions of the Parchment Codices 0210 Pap. 3607 contains John 5:44 on the recto and 6:1–2 on the verso, while Pap. 3623 has 6:41–42 on its recto and nothing on the verso. The fragments were first edited by Otto Stegmüller in his article on the hermeneiai in Codex Bezae.10 They are to be dated to the seventh century. Beneath the text of each biblical passage is the heading hermeneia and a phrase. 0302 The manuscript contains John 10:29–30 on the recto, followed by the heading [ερμη]νÖια followed by empty parchment (probably the hermeneia itself was on the missing left side of the page. The verso contains illegible traces of text followed by a hermeneia, in Greek and in Coptic. The first editor, Kurt Treu,11 read fragments of a first line on the recto 8 Elliott and Parker, New Testament in Greek IV, Plate 35 (d). 9 See L. Casson and E. L. Hettich, Excavations at Nessana, Vol. 2, Literary Papyri (Colt Archaeological Institute/University Press: Princeton, 1950), 94– 95: “It seems almost certain that the layout of the page in the two documents [sc. P59 and P60] was similar, i.e. that [P60] bore at the bottom of each page a ἑρμηνεία consisting of a center-head and a line or line and a half of descriptive or interpretive text.” 10 “Zu den Bibelorakeln im Codex Bezae,” Bib 34 (1953), 18–19. Transcriptions of 0210 and 0302 based on fresh examinations of the manuscripts have been made for the IGNT edition of the majuscule manuscripts. 11 K. Treu, “P. Berol. 21315: Bibelorakeln mit griechischer und koptischer

manuscripts of john with hermeneiai

51

which, even after using a microscope, Dr Elliott and I were unable to confirm when we studied the manuscript in June, 1999. The manuscript is dated to the sixth century. The mixture of Greek and Coptic in a hermeneia manuscript is not unique. Treu points to P63, to Paris, Bib. Nat. Copt. 156 (not a New Testament witness) and to a fragment in the Louvre, which he describes as having hermeneiai to John, but with no extant biblical text (van Haelst 1124).

An Analysis of the Documents Since the goal of this enquiry is to determine the value of this group of witnesses for the editor of John, it is worth considering the ways in which they might be compared with each other and contrasted with other witnesses. I suggest that there are four ways in which we may test this. The first is to look at their script, to attempt an opinion on their quality as written documents. The second is to look at their presentation. The third is to assess the standard of their orthography. The fourth is to compare their text with that of other witnesses, to see what variants they contain, and how seriously they should be taken. Date The comparative list of dates in the IGNTP papyrus volume leads to the following summary of the wider period in which they have been dated: Table 5: Summary of Manuscript Dates

Manuscript

Date

P55 P59 P60 P63 P76 P80 0210 0302

VI–VII VII–VIII VII–VIII V–VI VI V–VI VII VI

Hermeneiai,” APF 37 (1991), 55–60.

52

parker

It is certainly noteworthy that they all fall into one period. It is the same period as the addition of the sortes to Codex Bezae.12 The fact is striking, and even with so small a sample it seems to be a reasonable conclusion that the practice of making such books began in the fifth century.13 Script Treu describes 0302 as well-written, and I agree. It is a competent square hand. The same cannot be said for 0210, written somewhat sprawlingly with an inconsistent slope to the right. P55 is evenly written in a rather compressed hand. P59 is in a similar style, while P60 is sufficiently similar to P59 for the first editors to have taken a while to realise that they were dealing with two manuscripts rather than one. P63 is no better, even rather worse, than 0210. P76 is a good piece of writing, very much the product of a Coptic scribe. P80 is very similar in appearance to 0210. We thus have one well-written manuscript (0302), four good but not quite as good (P55 P59 P60 P76) and three poor ones (P63 P80 0210). The three poor ones have hands of a similar type, and so do three of the middle group. They are none of them among either the worst or best produced manuscripts of John, and it should be observed that it would not be hard to find similar examples among other manuscripts. P28 must rank at the bottom, and witnesses at the top must include P45, P75, and P95. Presentation It would be tempting to suspect that the less well-written manuscripts also let themselves down orthographically, so let us start with them. P63 immediately challenges the hypothesis. The scribe is careful with diaeresis and apostrophe, and corrects himself once (in 4:9). On the other hand, there is a complete absence of punctuation. An interesting 12 See Parker, Codex Bezae. An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text (Cambridge: University Press, 1992), 43, 49, where they are dated to the period 550–600. 13 We need to annotate van der Horst in two respects therefore. So far as the sortes in Codex Bezae are concerned, he follows the broad dating of former scholarship, describing them as “between the seventh and ninth century” (“Sortes,” 166). And he follows Metzger’s acceptance of Roca-Puig’s dating of P80 when writing that “one already finds this kind of oracular hermêneiai in eight early papyri of the Gospel of John dating from circa 300 to 600 CE” (167, n. 101).

manuscripts of john with hermeneiai

53

feature of this copy is that nomina sacra are scarcely found. All such words are written in full, with the exception of θυ at 3:18 and 4:10. The layout is generous, with a clear delineation between biblical text and hermeneia. P80 is very brief, containing only six words wholly or partially surviving. Here πνευμα, the only word which is a nomen sacrum, is written in full. There is no space between the text and the hermeneia. 0210 has page numbers, but is otherwise rather featureless, with no punctuation or diacriticals. There is no consistent attempt to separate the Gospel text from the hermeneia. It has nomina sacra. In the next group, P55, while lacking punctuation, has diaeresis sometimes but not always, and a rather careful layout, with a lot of space around the hermeneia heading. P59 also has a generous layout, as may be seen from the largest surviving part, Fragment IV (a) and (b), and the smaller fragment IX (papyrological) verso. We find fairly consistent use of diaeresis (in the form like a circumflex accent). The first letter of the page (which begins with a new section) is enlarged, usually with paragraphus supplied. Nomina sacra are used. The original lay-out of P60 is not so clear, but like P59 it may have been quite generous. Certainly what may be seen of the upper margin gives this impression. It has the same form of diaeresis as P59, and occasionally the first letter of the page is enlarged or ekthetic. It uses nomina sacra. The layout of P76 is very similar to the other three, with the addition of some ornamentation around the hermeneiai. There is nowhere in this small fragment a place where a diaeresis or nomen sacrum could be written. We do have one punctuation mark. Finally, 0302 is again frustratingly small (only seven words of John). It clearly distinguishes the two categories of Gospel text and hermeneia, and shows a degree of decoration. There is a punctuation mark. Apart from P63, is it wishful thinking to find any distinguishing marks for the groups? It seems to me that, with the exception of P63, there is—hardly surprisingly—a correlation between quality of script and clarity of layout. The absence of nomina sacra may be associated with the poorer hands. Orthography Again, one approaches this aspect of production with the question of correlation of quality with hand and layout.

54

parker

As for P63, there is one possible peculiarity, at 3:18, where it reads καικρ[ι]νεται. But it might deserve the benefit of the doubt here—the first editor preferred to read this as two words. P80 is so short that the fact that its six words contain no oddities tells us nothing. Finally, 0210 reads ουκ instead of ουχ at 6:42. Coming to the next tentative group, P55 shows no peculiarities, since ειδε for ιδε at 1:36 is by no means a rare spelling. Since it contains approximately three dozen complete or nearly complete words, this seems fairly accurate, although most of the complete words are ones with little room for variation, such as articles or nomina sacra. P59 shows fairly consistent orthography, especially in writing iota for epsilon-iota: 11:42 11:44 11:47 11:48 11:51 18:2 18:22 21:15 21:20

ηδι[ν] [υπ]αÖγ Öιν [αρχιε]ρισ [ελευσον]τεÖ εκι ÖνουÖ εÖκι [υ]πÖεραι[των] ραπει[σμα] πλι[ον] [βλε]πι

P60 has very similar habits: 16:33 17:8 17:11 17:21 17:22 17:23 18:1 18:4 18:7 18:10

[εξε]ται ρειματ[α] απεστιλα[σ] ερχομεÖ [απεσ]τÖι ÖλÖασ ηÖμισ [τε]τÖελιωμενοι αÖπ[Ö εσ]τÖιλα[σ] [συν τοισ μαθ]ηÖτεσ ζητιτεÖ [ζ]ητιτε ναζωρεÖονÖ Ö ηλκυÖ[σεν] επεσεν

manuscripts of john with hermeneiai 18:12 18:15 18:24 18:25 18:32 18:36 18:39 19:6 19:7 19:10

19:12 19:25

55

[οι υπηρε]τε ηÖκοÖλουÖθι σÖυνισÖηλθεν απεστιλεν [θε]ρÖμενομ[ενοσ] σÖημενων υÖπηÖρεÖ τÖ ε14 [συ]νÖηθια [βουλεσ]θÖαιÖ Ö [υπηρε]τεÖ ηÖμισ [ο]φιλι [απ]οÖλυÖ σε σαÖι σÖταυρÖωσεÖ ι (for ει) [ει]στηÖκιÖ σαν

The consistency in writing iota for epsilon-iota is even found in a preference for πιλατοσ over πειλατοσ. It and P59 present a fairly consistent picture, although it has to be said that P60 exchanges epsilon for alpha-iota more than P59 does. P76 also replaces epsilon-iota with iota, reading μιζωÖ[ν] at 4:12. This brief fragment (17 words preserved, only four of them in full) has no idiosyncrasies. 0302 has none either, but there is little enough evidence, as we have seen. Given the difficulty of adjudging such very fragmentary texts, none of these shows any consistent habits which cannot be paralleled from other papyri and majuscules, as the IGNTP editions of these texts makes clear. Text Forms I turn finally to the question which for many editors is likely to come first. In the first place, one notes that the documents were all produced in the fifth to eighth centuries. There are no third–fourth-century 14 The reading follows the first editors (Casson and Hettich, cited above). The piece of parchment containing the pi is missing.

56

parker

witnesses, and none from a period when the Byzantine Text had become fully developed. Secondly, it must be pointed out that these documents are not like Codex Bezae, to which the hermeneiai were added a long time after it had been produced. These are purpose-written, and most notably did not necessarily contain the continuous text of John. A hermeneia manuscript can be non-continuous in two possible ways. First, it may contain a selection of pieces of text. Second, it may contain continuous text, each page beginning with a new division of the text, with the hermeneia beneath. The surviving material of each witness needs careful scrutiny before one can decide to which type it belongs. We cannot reach a conclusion with regard to the single leaf comprising P55, of which the upper and lower margins are both missing. The first side contains most of 1:31–33, and the second 35–38. Although there are no codicological difficulties with the possibility that the second side contained verse 34, it is worth noting that the first letter of verse 35 seems to be preceded by a paragraphus. On the analogy of P59, this suggests that the page began here. But given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, certainty cannot be attained. P59 has clear evidence of belonging to the second type. Fragment IV (easily the largest) consists of two conjoint leaves, the central sheet of a gathering. The sequence of material on these pages is John 11:40– 43 + hermeneia – 11:44–46 + hermeneia – 11:47–48 (no hermeneia on surviving material) – 11:49–52 + hermeneia. As has been noted, each page usually begins with an enlarged letter and paragraphus. Fragments VII (17:24–26 and 18:1–2) and XII (21:17 and 21:18) also support the view that the entire Gospel text was contained.15 Turning to P60, the evidence is sufficiently conclusive that it contained the continuous text. Fragments XII (18:26–27 on one side and 18:28–29 on the other) and XIV (18:34–35 and 18:36) are good examples. P63 consists of two conjoint leaves, with John 3:14–15 and 16–18 on the first recto and verso, and 4:9 and 4:10 on the second pair. It is not very easy to work out very much about further textual divisions in the manuscript. If we assume that the manuscript contained all the text 15 Note also the possibility that the beginning of 11:47, found on Fragment IV(c) recto had been begun on the bottom of the previous page. See Elliott and Parker, New Testament in Greek IV, 79.

manuscripts of john with hermeneiai

57

between 3:17 and 4:8, then a division into an even number of sections of a similar size could suggest eight blocks (3:19–21, 22–24, 25–26, 27–28, 29–31, 32–36; 4:1–4, 5–8), in which case the surviving sheet would have been the second of a quaternion. With twelve slightly shorter blocks, it would have been the outermost sheet. It therefore appears to be of the second type.16 P76 is part of a single leaf, containing 4:9 on the papyrological verso and 4:12 on the recto (we do not have the beginning of either). It could have contained the verses in between if it had been approximately 34 cm in height, which would be unusually large for a Gospel papyrus.17 It may more plausibly be thought to have contained a selection. Since our fragment of P80 only preserves writing on one side, nothing can be said. The first leaf of 0210 clearly did not contain 5:45–47 (at any rate, not in sequence between 5:44 and 6:1). It is the only certain example of the first type of non-continuous text witness. As with P80, we cannot say anything about 0302. The conclusions to be drawn then with regard to the text contained by these witnesses is: Selection of passages 0210 Possibly selection of passages P76 Most likely continuous sequence of text divided into blocks P59 P60 Possibly continuous sequence of text divided into blocks P63 No evidence P55 P80 0302

It is likely that the preference was for reproducing all the biblical text. 16 At such a rate, a book containing the entire Gospel would have been very large. 17 The existing material, containing 77 letters in the IGNTP reconstruction (which lacks a probable 4 letters at the beginning and 5 at the end), is in six lines, with a total vertical measurement of 7 cm. The number of letters in the NA27 text for 4:10–11 is 193. Calculating 15 letters to the lines (86 divided by 6), verses 10 and 11 would have taken up 13 lines. Allowing 1 cm between the top of one line and the top of the one below, this would require 13 cm. When one adds 11 cm for the material below the last line of biblical text (containing hermeneia and bottom margin) and calculates a similar 3 cm for the top margin, one reaches a total of 3 (top margin) +13 (verses 10–11) + 7 (verse 12) + 11 (hermeneia).

58

parker

With regard to the text, the first question that occurs is whether the way in which the text is presented—as discrete blocks—affected the wording. There is a possible analogy with the lectionaries, in which standard opening phrases, incipits, are used, with appropriate changes to the biblical text. For example, P63 immediately shows signs of not being a continuous-text manuscript by omitting και in 3:14, against all other papyrus and majuscule witnesses. We have the following places where the beginning of a passage is extant in one of the eight witnesses. The variants are provided which are found in the IGNTP’s editions of the papyri and the majuscule manuscripts.18 P55 1:35 τÖ[η επαυριον παλιν] παλιν omitted by P75 036 044 P59

P60

11:40 Λεγει αυÖ[τη ο ισ] 11:44 Εξ[ηλθεν ο τεθνη]κωσ 11:47 11:49 12:35 21:17 21:19

P66 02 omit ο Omission of και with P45 P66 P75 03 04* 019 044 ΣυνÖ[ηγαγον ουν οι] No variation [Εισ δε τισ εξ αυτων] P66 omits τισ Ειπεν ουνÖ No variation Λεγει αυτ[ω το τριτον] 04 omits το Και τοÖ[υ]τÖ[ο ειπων] No variation

17:1

[ταυτα ελαλησεν] οÖ ι Öσ

18:15 ηÖκοÖλουÖθι δÖε Ö [τω ιυ] 18:26 λÖεγει εισ εκ τωÖ[ν] 18:28 [αγουσιν ου]ν τον 18:31 Ειπεν ουνÖ αÖυ[Ö τοισ] 18:32 [ ] τÖου ιυ

ο is omitted by 01 03 038 0109 No variation No variation ουν is omitted by 019 021 030 0211 No variation There is too little room for ινα ο λογοσ, but the fact that

18 Elliott and Parker, New Testament in Greek IV, and U. B. Schmid, ed., with the assistance of Elliott and Parker, The New Testament in Greek IV. The Gospel According to St. John, Vol. 2, The Majuscules (ed. by the American and British Committees of the IGNTP; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). There could be relevant information in other witnesses, but this restriction has the virtue of providing a complete record for the two oldest classes of manuscript.

manuscripts of john with hermeneiai

19:23

what lies above looks to be the top margin leaves one wondering whether this page ran continuously from the other side [απ]εκριθηÖ οÖ ο is omitted by P66 03 019 033 0109; αυτω ο is read by 01 04C2 07 011 013 017 028 034 036 037 039 045 047; P60 is in agreement with 02 04* 05 etc. [απεκριθη ισ] ηÖ ο ισ is read by 022 037; P66 and the rest omit ο [απε]κριθησÖαÖ[ν αυτω] αυτω is omitted by P66 P90vid 01 032 [λεγει αυτω ο] πÖιλατοσÖ Omission of ουν with 01* 02 against P66 and the rest ΟÖ [ι] δÖ[ε ε]κραυÖγ[αζον] Ö All other witnesses read δε ιουδαιοι εκραζ. [ λεγει τοισ ι]ουδα[ιοισ] Probably no room for και; against all other papyrus and majuscule witnesses ΟÖ [ι ο]υÖν No variation

3:14

καθωÖσÖ μÖωϋσησ

18:34

18:36 19:7 19:10 19:12 19:14

P63

59

3:16 4:9

4:10

0210 5:44 6:1 6:41

Omission of και against all other papyrus and majuscule witnesses ουτωσ γαρ ηγα[πη]σεν 063 omits γαρ λεγει ουν αυτω ουν read with P66 P75 and most majuscules; 01* 028* 031* 047 omit it απεκριθη ο ισ και ειπÖ[ε]νÖ ο read with 05 022 038; P66 P75 and all other majuscules omit it [π]ωÖσ δυνασθε πισÖ[τευσαι] No variation [μ]εÖταÖ Öταυτα απηλθεÖ No variation [ε]γ Öογγυζον ουν οι ϊουδ[αιοι] 05 reads δε for ουν

60

parker

The witnesses come out of this examination very well. If one were to take the analogy of lectionary manuscripts, a non-continuous witness would be quite likely to remove conjunctions. Only three times does a manuscript omit against all other cited witnesses (P60 at 19:12, 14 and P63 at 3:14). But both manuscripts retain a conjunction elsewhere (P60 at 18:15, 28, 31; 19:12, 23 and P63 at 3:16; 4:9. The other manuscripts with an opening phrase all contain a conjunction at least once. Moreover, there are a number of places where a word found in one of these manuscripts is omitted elsewhere in the tradition. It may therefore be concluded that this class of manuscripts retains significance in these opening phrases. An example of the significance of this is at 19:10. If P60 regularly omitted conjunctions, then the likelihood of its omission of οὖν along with 01* and 02 being genealogically significant would be reduced. As it is, the reading may be regarded as possibly significant genealogically. There is no difference observable in this tiny sample between witnesses likely to contain selections and those with the continuous text. Turning to the rest of the text, how much do these witnesses show readings which we know from the other papyri and majuscules? P55 has these noteworthy readings; 1:31 1:32

1:35 1:36 1:37

1:38

υδατι with P66 P75 03 04 011 019 024 029 032 038 039 044 083 0233 0260; τω υδατι 01 cet ωσ with P75 01 03 cet; ωσει P66 017 021 024 030 033 034 037 039 041 063 0101 0211 0233 εμεινεν with P66 P75 02 03 cet; μενον 01 032 παλιν is omitted by P75 036 044 (see above) ο is omitted by P75 03 019 P66* 04 032 add ο αιρων την αμαρτιαν του κοσμου probably reads και with P5 P66 P75 cet; omitted by 01* 044 οι δυο μαθηται αυτου (what survives is ο[ ]του) with 01 03; οι δυο αυτου μαθηται P66 P75 04* 019 032 033 044 083; οι δυο μαθηται P5; αυτου οι δυο μαθηται cet probably read δε with P5 P66 P75 cet; omitted by 01* 07 09 013 021 031 036 039 045 063 083 0233 αυτοισ is omitted by 01*

With no errors, no singular readings, and agreement always with either

manuscripts of john with hermeneiai

61

P75 or 03 (in fact a direct comparison with 03 shows that the two differ only in orthography), the text is of excellent quality. The following readings in P59 are worth singling out: 1:26 2:15 11:40 11:41

11:43 11:44

11:46 11:51

11:52 17:25 18:17

18:22

21:18

21:20

omits δε after μεσοσ with P66 P75 01 03 04* 019 083 probably added αυτων after τραπεζασ (reads [ ]ων), against all other witnesses probably read ο before ισ with P75 01 03 cet, against P66 02, which omit it (see above) omits ου ην ο τεθνηκωσ κειμενοσ with P66 P75 01 03 04* 05 019 032 033 038 044 0233; 02 017 041 omit ο τεθνηκωσ κειμενοσ probably omitted δε before ισ with 0233 (και ο 05; ο ουν 038), but is alone in the word order [ηρεν] οÖ ι[σ] omitted φωνη μεγαλη against all other witnesses omission of και with P45 P66 P75 03 04* 019 044 (see above) possible insertion of και before λεγει against all other witnesses probable insertion of αυτον before υπαγειν with 03 04* 019 038 reads οÖ against 03 04 05 019, which omit it reads μεÖ[λλει] against all other witnesses omitted ο with P45 P66 and all majuscules except 038 041C 070 0211 reads δÖ[ιεσ]κÖορπισμενα with P75 and nearly all other witnesses (εσκορπισμενα P45 P66 05) omits και ουτοι εγνωσαν against all other witnesses τω πετρω η παιδισκη η θυρωροσ with 04* 019 033; 03 omits τω πετρω; the rest have η παιδισκη η θυρωροσ τω πετρω in word order των παρεστηκως υπηρετων (but not necessarily the precise form) agrees with 01Cca 04* 019 033 044 054 reads αλλοι (and presumably plural verb forms) with 01 05 032 (041 also has plural verb forms) reads [α]πÖοισου[σιν] with 01Cca 032 041 reads δε with most witnesses (02 03 04 032 041* omit)

62

parker 21:23 supports ουκ ειπεν δε with 01 03 04 032 against και ουκ ειπεν cet

This papyrus has five readings not attested in any other extant papyrus or majuscule. In two it omits (11:43; 17:25), in two it adds (2:15; 11:44) and in one (11:51) it changes a form. There is no direction of change different from that usually found in manuscripts—that is to say, individual manuscripts tend to lose words, even though the text as a whole tended to expand in the course of transmission. There are no grounds for doubting that, whatever the purpose of the book in which it was written, this document was written to a good standard of attention. Turning to P60, the following readings are worth noting: 16:29 the reconstruction suggests that the manuscript may have read εν before παρρησια, with 01* 03 04 05 032 16:33 the reconstruction suggests that the manuscript omitted εγω, against all other witnesses 17:1 seems to have omitted both και and σου, either side of ο υιοσ, with 01 03 032 0109* 0301 and against P66 and the rest (02 05 033 038 omit only και) 17:9 seems to have omitted περι αυτων ερωτω ου; this slip was not made in any other of the manuscripts under review 17:12 omitted εν τω κοσμω with P66 01 03 04* 05* 019 032 η before γραφη is omitted, without other support 17:22 omits εσμεν at the end of the verse with P66 03 04* 05 019 032 17:24 reads ο for ουσ with 01 03 05 032 18:4 reads [εξηλ]θεν εξω κÖ[αι]; εξηλθε(ν) και is read by 03 04* 05, but εξω is not read by any other witness19 18:5 omits ο ισ with 03 05 0211 (and probably P66) 18:10 reads ωταριον against ωτιον with 01 03 04* 019 032 033 18:13 reads απηγαγον against P66 01* 03 05 032; omits αυτον with P66 01 03 04* 05 022 032 033 037 18:14 is alone in omitting ο before συμβουλευσασ20 19 This includes all the minuscules according to the complete collation of John 18 made by the IGNTP. 20 The reading is supported by two minuscules, 2291 and 2656*.

manuscripts of john with hermeneiai

63

18:18 reads και ο πετροσ μετ αυτων with P66vid 01 03 04 019 033 18:24 has ουν with 03 04* 019 022 032 033 037 038 041C 044 according to the IGNTP reconstruction, reads ιν for αυτον, an otherwise unattested reading 18:25 adds μετ αυτ[ου] after πετροσ, not otherwise attested21 18:33 reads εξηλθεν instead of εισηλθεν, with no support omits και εφωνησεν τον ιησουν, again with no support22 18:34 omits αυτω with P66 02 03 04* and others reads ο against P66 03 019 033 0109 omits συ, with 01* 18:36 reads οι εμοι ηγο(ω)νιζοντο αν with P90 019 032 033 044 0109 18:37 omits ο before ιησουσ with 019 032 033 036 037 044 omits εγω with P90 01 03 019 032 044 054 0290 18:39 reconstructed as reading [συ]νηθια υμ[ιν απολε]σθαι το π[ασχα]; the closest reading is that of 0211, συνιθεια υμιν απολυσω εν το πασχα 18:40 omits παντεσ with 01 03 019 032 033 045* 0109 19:2 reads [πορφυ]ρουν ιμ[ατιον], with no support 19:5 reads ιδου against ιδε with P90 01 019 032 033 044 054 19:10 supports απολυσαι… σταυσωραι with 01 02 03 022 19:11 reads αυτω with 01 03 019 032 044 0211 reads κατ εμου ουδεμιαν with P66 01 03 017 019 032 033 044 19:12 omits ιουδαιοι against all other witnesses (and see above) 19:13 reads τουτων των λογων with 07 013 028 034C* 037 038C* 054 21 Minuscule 895 reads μετ αυτου σιμων πετροσ. Without this evidence, one would be tempted to reconstruct P60 as μετ αυτ[ων]. 22 Minuscule 1555 also omits the words, though it then reads λεγει, not ειπεν.

64

parker 19:15 adds λεγοντεσ with 022 030 19:16 supports the phrasing οι δε παραλαβοντεσ τον ιησουν απηγαγον, with 021 (reads παρελαβοντεσ) 022 032 (λαβοντεσ… απηγαγον 01*; παραλαβοντεσ… ηγαγον) 19:17 supports εαυτω τον σταυρον with P66 01 019 032 041 044 0290 (αυτω 03 033) 19:20 according to the reconstruction supports the order εβραιστι ρωμαιστι ελληνιστι with 01S1 03 019 022 033 044; only the second ιστ is visible, but the space requires that it be from ρωμαιστι, and there is scarcely room for ελληνιστι before it and in any case neither P66 (the only other papyrus for this passage, itself partly lacunose) nor any majuscule places ελληνιστι first 19:25 according to the reconstruction omitted μαρια η του κλωπα και, with no support

There are twelve readings here supported by no other papyrus and by no majuscule: 16:33 omits εγω 17:9 omits περι αυτων ερωτω ου omits η before γραφη 18:4 adds εξω after [εξηλ]θεν 18:14 omits ο before συμβουλευσασ 18:24 reads ιν for αυτον 18:25 adds μετ αυτ[ου] after πετροσ 18:33 reads εξηλθεν instead of εισηλθεν omits και εφωνησεν τον ιησουν 19:2 reads [πορφυ]ρουν ιμ[ατιον] 19:12 omits ιουδαιοι 19:25 omits μαρια η του κλωπα και Seven are omissions. Although this is the kind of tendency one expects from most scribes, it is arguable that this copyist shows it somewhat strongly. On the other hand, we also have two places where wording is expanded. There are two substitutions and one change of order. The three longer omissions are all understandable as the omission of a clause leaving some kind of sense (at 17:9 and 19:25 saut du même au même is a likely explanation). We have a couple of articles omitted, evident confusion once (εξηλθεν; 18:33), and a few minor alterations

manuscripts of john with hermeneiai

65

which do not affect the sense of the text. The omission of ιουδαιοι at 19:12 may or may not be associated with a new section. With regard to the quality of text, it has to be said that this manuscript often agrees with manuscripts showing a form of text which may well be the source of the other variants. Compared to P59 and P60, the remaining witnesses are too slight to provide much evidence. Nevertheless, P63 has some interesting readings: 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:17 4:9 4:10

omits και with no support (see above) includes μη αποληται αλλ against P36 P66 P75 01 03 019 029 032 083 086 includes αυτου after υιου against P66 P75 01* 03 032 adds εισ το[ν κοσμ]ον after εδωκεν, with 022 omits ινα κρινη τον κοσμον, with P66* reads γυναικοσ σαμαριτιδοσ ουσησ with P66 P76vid 01 02 03 04* 019 022 032 044 083 086 adds ο before ιησουσ, with 05 022 038 the scribe first wrote ζω υδωρ, and corrected it to υδωρ ζων (the reading of all other witnesses)

There are several longer readings here, as well as several omissions. The parablepsis at 3:17 is an error apparently also committed (and corrected) by the scribe of P66. It is difficult to decide on so small a sample whether its agreements with 022 indicate a noteworthy similarity or not.23 P76 probably shares the P63 reading γυναικοσ σαμαριτιδοσ ουσησ at 4:9. At 4:12 it reads οστισ instead of οσ, with 01 and 038, and in the same verse omitted και οι υιοι αυτου, with 0211—probably a coincidence in parablepsis. This manuscript is too lacunose for me to draw any conclusions from that. P80, although so brief, has a noteworthy reading at 3:34, where it has μερου[σ] with 030 (μερου P66*), against μετρου. Readings from 0210 are as follows: 5:44

omits υμεισ with 019 includes θεου against P66 P75 03 032

23 The only differences between them are (022 first): 3:14 και] ΟΜ; 3:17 ινα κρινη τον κοσμον] ΟΜ; 3:18 κεκριται] καικρ[ι]νεται; 4:9 πιειν] πειν; 4:10 πιειν] πειν; εδωκεν] εδωκεν αν.

66

parker 6:1 6:2

6:41

omits the article before ιησουσ, with no support omits τησ γαλιλαιασ with 022 047 probably asyndetic, with no support reads εθεωρουν, with P66*C 03 05 019 022 044 omits επι των ασθενουντων, with no support has the word order εκ του ουρανου καταβασ, with 021 036 044 047

Three readings with no support in this fragment, all of omission, does seem quite high. Finally, what about 0302? 10:29 includes μου after πατροσ, against P66 P75 01 03 019 If one starts with the hypothesis to be tested, that these manuscripts by their nature are unlikely to be very useful in textual study and comparison, then they come out of the test very well. They regularly show good readings and cannot often be condemned for lack of care in the reproduction of the text. Certainly they do not fare worse than continuous text manuscripts.24

The Use of Manuscripts Containing Hermeneiai in Editing John In order to keep track of the large number of witnesses to the text of the New Testament, we need to categorise, list and number them. A result of this is that we can very easily fall into the trap of treating all witnesses which we have then captured as though they were of a single 24 With regard to the number of otherwise unattested readings these MSS are not abnormally high. A quick check of extensive papyri and majuscules dating from the eighth century and earlier in John 9:1–20 in the IGNTP apparatus of these two types of manuscripts gave the following numbers of singular readings once itacisms, minor morphological variations, and complete nonsense have been eliminated: Table 6: Singular Readings in Pre-9th-Century MSS P66 4 (1 corrected) 05 14 P75 1 (corrected) 07 1 (corrected) 01 4 (2 corrected) 019 1 02 5 (3 corrected) 022 33 03 3 032 2 04 0 047 3

manuscripts of john with hermeneiai

67

kind, while totally ignoring those which fall outside our parameters. The witnesses with fortune telling sentences demand that we think differently. In their nature and in how they have been used, they link two areas of research. What we have concluded with regard to their textual character suggests that, with caution in certain respects, they deserve to be used alongside continuous-text manuscripts as useful, albeit fragmentary, weapons in the study of the development of the Johannine text. At the same time, in appearance and purpose they have less in common with the continuous-text manuscripts than they do with various texts which have long been excluded from the reckoning of witnesses to the New Testament text. These texts include amulets and other kinds of documents as they have been described by Stuart Pickering.25 It is arguable that such materials should be taken into account by students of the Johannine text. Pickering argues that the likely extent of scribal interference in producing these non-continuous-text manuscripts is precisely what makes them so interesting. It is also worth wondering whether care in the wording may have been viewed as necessary for the magic to take effect. Certainly, if we are interested in every question we can think of regarding the use that early Christianity and its scribes made of its texts, then these scraps, catching copyists and users not on their best textual behaviour, are as important as any other. Here I set aside questions of category and inclusion—if we exclude 0212 because it is a harmony fragment, and P. Vindob. G 2312 because it contains excerpts (from Ps 90, Rom 2 and John 2), then why should we include excerpts with hermeneiai in an edition? Should we distinguish between the ones which seem to have contained a continuous text and those consisting of excerpts? We return to the question behind this study: Can we treat these copies as serious and reliable witnesses to the text of the Gospel of John? The answer lies in the fact that with regard to book production—script, presentation, and orthography—we find the group not distinguishable from other copies of John, showing a similar range of abilities. With regard to the text, we find evidence that the wording of 25

S. R. Pickering, “The Significance of Non-Continuous New Testament Textual Materials in Papyri,” in Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (ed. D. G. K. Taylor; TS 3/1; Birmingham: University Press; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 121–41.

68

parker

the text was relevant to the scribe, who produced a good copy. Comparison with other papyrus and majuscule witnesses shows a high degree of agreement and an unremarkable number of singular readings. It must therefore be concluded that these are documents which are of use to the editor of John.

The Ethiopic Version and the “Western” Text of Acts in Le Texte Occidental des Actes des Apôtres Curt Niccum, Oklahoma Christian University Perhaps no other early version has received a vaster array of assessments about its value for New Testament textual criticism than the Ethiopic. Previous investigations identified the source language as Greek, Syriac or Arabic.1 Lacking a consensus in terms of its textual affinity, scholars have claimed the Ge‘ez text a representative of the Byzantine, “Western,” or Alexandrian text-types.2 The uncritical examination of witnesses in 1 From Hiob Ludolf (1681) to the most recent critical editions of the Novum Testamentum aethiopice (2001) most scholars have identified a Greek Vorlage. Among the exceptions are two who argue for the Syriac—J. Gildemeister, in a letter cited in C. R. Gregory’s Prolegomena in Constantin Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum graece (Editio octava critica maior; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1894), 3:895–96, and Arthur Vööbus, Die Spuren eines älteren äthiopischen Evangelientextes im Lichte der literarischen Monumente (PETSE 2; Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1951), 10–31, and ibid., Early Versions of the New Testament (PETSE 6; Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1954), 249–65; and one proposing a fourteenth-century translation from the Arabic—Paul de Lagarde, Ankündigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griechischen Übersezung [sic] des Alten Testaments (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1882), 28. 2 B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2: Introduction and Appendix (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881), 158. More recently Rochus Zuurmond has confirmed (and refined the definition of ) a

69

70

niccum

conjunction with the presumption of textual homogeneity for the entire New Testament marred these earlier studies. Thus, the rather confusing assessment of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort prevailed: Whatever may be the real origin of the Æthiopic, it is on the one hand strongly Syrian, on the other in strong affinity with its Egyptian neighbours, and especially its nearer neighbour the Thebaic: both ancient Western and ancient Non-Western readings, Alexandrian and other, are conspicuous in its unsettled but certainly composite text.3

Only two of these studies, both composed in the last century, specifically targeted the text of Acts. Yet even here investigators drew diametrically opposed conclusions. In 1934 James Montgomery examined three manuscripts and detected an Alexandrian type of text deserving further attention.4 Fifty years later, Boismard and Lamouille, working from a larger but still limited sampling, hailed the Ethiopic as an important witness for the “Western” text.5 Cognizant of these contradictory assessments, Carroll Osburn asked for an investigation. In “mixed text” in the Gospels. An Alexandrian text lies behind Paul’s Prison Epistles and the Book of Revelation with the Catholic Epistles reflecting the same but with greater Byzantine influence. (See J. Hofmann, Die Äthiopische Übersetzung des Johannes-Apokalypse kritisch Untersucht [CSCO 297; Louvain: CSCO, 1969]; J. Hofmann and S. Uhlig, Novum Testamentum Aethiopice: Die Katholischen Briefe [ÄF 29; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993]; H. Maehlum and S. Uhlig, Novum Testamentum Aethiopice: Die Äthiopische Version der Gefangenschaftsbriefe des Paulus [ÄF 33; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1992]; R. Zuurmond, Novum Testamentum aethiopice: The Synoptic Gospels-General Introduction, The Gospel of Mark [ÄF 27; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989], and Novum Testamentum aethiopice: The Gospel of Matthew [ÄF 55; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001]). The Book of Acts will be discussed below. 3 New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2: Introduction and Appendix, 158. 4 James Montgomery, “The Ethiopic Text of Acts of the Apostles,” HTR 27 (1934), 169–205. 5 M-.É. Boismard and A. Lamouille, Le Texte Occidental des Actes des Apôtres: Reconstitution et Réhabilitation (Synthèse 17; 2 vols.; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984). “Western” occurs within quotation marks due to the lack of scholarly consensus as to whether its witnesses actually constitute a text-type. For different reasons the word “original” should also be so noted, but the multiplication of quotation marks would make the text too cumbersome.

Ethiopic version and “western” text

71

his honour I hope to show that Boismard and Lamouille misconstrued the data.

Transmission History A singular interpretation of Ethiopia’s early literary history provides the foundation for Boismard and Lamouille’s use of Ethiopic readings in their reconstruction of the “Western” text. They presume that Frumentius, the traditional founder of Ethiopian Christianity, translated the Book of Acts from the Greek in the fourth century. Only fragments of this original translation remain, embedded in two separate revisions. Each of these thoroughly modified and subsequently supplanted this primitive “Western” text. The A-text, the earliest of these recensions, aligned the text with a Greek source possessing an Alexandrian texttype.6 With the arrival of the Nine Saints in the sixth century, the editing of the early archetype in consultation with the Syriac Peshitta produced the B-text.7 They disavow any substantial revisions thereafter.8 The paucity of sources and the often ambiguous evidence makes outlining the early transmission history of the Ethiopic version difficult. Although the evidence is capable of sustaining several different 6 The nomenclature used throughout this paper follows C. Niccum, “The Book of Acts in Ethiopic (with Critical Text and Apparatus) and Its Relation to the Greek Textual Tradition” (PhD Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 2000). The “A-text” and “B-text” generally correspond to Boismard and Lamouille’s Eth.A and Eth.B respectively. Representatives of the former include, with some qualification: Eth.1 (=the Roman edition “R”), Eth.2 (=ms 20), Eth.3 (=ms 42), and Eth.20 (=ms 5083). The B-text consists of Eth.4 (=ms 530), Eth. 5 (=ms 529), Eth.6 (=ms 526, an AB-text), Eth.7 (=ms 531, an AB-text), Eth.8 (=ms 41), Eth.9 (=ms 6519), Eth.10 (=ms 6541), Eth.11 (=ms 6861 [not 2861 as in Boismard and Lamouille, Texte Occidental (1984), 1:79]), Eth.12 (=ms 12), and Eth.13 (=the Platt edition “P”). For information on the textual character of these and ninety other manuscripts of Acts see Niccum, “Acts in Ethiopic,” 95–98, 399–401. 7 Boismard and Lamouille, Texte Occidental (1984), 1:93–94. Boismard proposed this hypothesis earlier in his “Review: The Early Versions of the New Testament by A. Vööbus,” RB 63 (1956), 455. 8 “S’il y eut d’autres influences sur la version éthiopienne, arabe par example, elles n’ont pas modifié profondément la physionomie des deux recensions principales,” Boismard and Lamouille, Texte Occidental (1984), 1:94 (emphasis mine).

72

niccum

theories, it does not support that of Boismard and Lamouille. The Earliest Period The first translation can hardly be attributed to Frumentius. Admittedly, Ethiopia’s ecclesiastical tradition ascribes translational activity to Abba Salama, an epithet often given to Frumentius. But in this context it applies instead to a fourteenth-century cleric of the same name.9 Internal evidence also excludes Frumentius as the earliest translator of Acts. The translator’s proficiency in Ethiopic and insufficient knowledge of Greek stands at variance with what is known about Abyssinia’s first bishop.10 Furthermore, the translation of Acts relies upon several previously translated biblical books. For example, the opening of the Fourth Gospel shapes the translation of Acts 1:1. This presupposes not only that the translation of John preceded that of Acts but that it had also circulated for a period long enough to create a “biblical” argot capable of influencing subsequent translations. This and other evidence places the translation of the Acts of the Apostles near the end of the biblical translation process in Ethiopia. A date in the fifth century is likely.11 The Syriac Revision Although the supposed Greek revision antedates the Syriac, the later recension proves key to unravelling the entire historical construct of Boismard and Lamouille. Indeed, their house of cards stands or falls based on the existence of this Syriac revision. As with the traditions surrounding Frumentius, numerous literary and historical problems accompany the legend of the Nine Saints. For over a century scholars have assumed Syrian nationalities for these heroes of Ethiopian history. But the identification of the Nine Saints as Syrians actually derives from a conjecture made by Ignazio Guidi 9 Edward Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible (Oxford: University Press, 1968), 31–33. 10 It appears unlikely that one who eventually tutored members of the royal family would be so ignorant. Interestingly, Boismard’s “original” text identifies Cyprus as a city (4:36), a mistake hardly attributable to an educated man from the city of Tyre. 11 See Niccum, “Acts in Ethiopic,” 80–83.

Ethiopic version and “western” text

73

rather than incontrovertible evidence within the legend itself.12 Paolo Marrassini has shown that only one of the nine holy men may actually hail from Syria and that most of the Saints’ names, even though Semitic, are not Syrian.13 Even if a Syrian provenance for the Nine Saints is presumed, this story may have developed to justify political positioning in the thirteenth century rather than to rehearse early ecclesiastical history.14 Therefore one must employ this material with utmost caution. As will be shown, though, the historical questions surrounding the legend are moot with regard to Boismard and Lamouille’s hypothesis. The B-text owes its form to nothing other than a late medieval Arabic revision. Arabic influence pervades the B-text. Note the following transliterations: The name for the Stoics in 17:18 (ûƊĘƨƌƨŗ) precisely follows the Arabic 7QÉêÓ. At 15:22 the B-text and the Arabic agree that the patronym of Judas, one of the representatives from Jerusalem, is Barseyan rather than Barsabban or Barnabas. Similarly both literally refer to “drachmae” at 19:19. Plus, a misreading of the Arabic (ä/ã) best explains the form ȃŜŴþŭĈ for Cenchrea (18:18), not the Syriac (—/”).15 Other passages that escaped the notice of Boismard and Lamouille confirm this later Arabic revision. At 1:6, only the B-text and the Arabic speak of restoring the kingdom to “the children of Israel.” In Stephen’s speech (7:26), both have Moses discovering “one of them” quarrelling rather than “two” (A-text) or just “them” (Syriac et al.). Likewise these two versions identify Gaius and Aristarchus as Paul’s “friends” rather than merely his companions (19:29). The B-text of 24:7 corresponds to the Arabic almost word for word in contrast to 12 Ignazio Guidi, “Le Traduzione degli Evangelii in Arabo e Etiopico,” Atti della R. Academei Dei Lincei, Anno CCLXXXV. 1888. Serie Quarta. Classe di Scienza, Morali, Storiche e Filologiche, Vol. 4, Part 1a: Memorie, Regia Accademia Dei Lincei, 34. He proposed this view based on his uncritical evaluation of transliterations in the Ethiopic biblical tradition. 13 Paolo Marrassini, “Some Considerations on the Problem of ‘Syriac Influences’ on Aksumite Ethiopia,” Journal of Ethiopian Studies 23 (1990), 35–46. 14 Zuurmond, Mark, 117, n.45. 15 See also ȀàĔĈ, “Fēlequs,” for Φιλίππους (16:12). An Arabic origin also facilitated the exchange of “Antioch” for “Italy” in 27:6.

74

niccum

the Syriac and other witnesses: Neither has an equivalent for παρελθὼν and Julius is a “commander” rather than “chiliarch” as in the Syriac. Six verses later the reading īĘƱïů, “before you,” finds a parallel only in the Arabic, and the description of the ship’s destruction in 27:41 can come only from the Arabic. More importantly, the following examples cited by Boismard and Lamouille as proof of a Syrian revision clearly betray the B-text’s Arabic roots. “Une traduction assez libre” of the Peshitta at 27:7 on closer inspection becomes a literal translation of the Arabic: ƇīŬŜĻȑŗȁĈȑũůÙàŗȑãƉûȑĀļƎȑƇŗDŽƱŗȑŧƱƨëȑŧĘÿǜĈ And because of the wind we were not able to go straight, and we sailed adjacent to Crete. áîçÜûܚ~ÿØ~–˜šŽ‡½åƒ¾Ï†˜š†…½ùÂü½ßƒŽÍÓ↠½Òûø

iFfxMWÓÑ7NQK"qMFOèÉÓeuLtbfÉèÉsÉuê At Acts 27:9 ıŧ, “he entered,” translates èÉ better than ûÂî. The same is true in 21:19 where ƇăÞðȑŜįáì, “and we said ‘Peace’ to them,” approximates tPQMWONM" more closely than ½ãàü†ÌßçÁÌ؆. While discussing the supposed parallels between the Ethiopic and the Syriac in 28:16–17, Boismard and Lamouille fail to note the immediately preceding verse where the B-text transliterates the Arabic!16 Although a cognate, ãƊřŀ, “taverns,” replicates the Arabic (ZQw) in contrast to the Syriac (ÍæÏ) and the more proper ãƊŚŀ of Ge‘ez. But irrefutable proof comes at the conclusion of the book. All B-text manuscripts contain a longer ending of Acts inserted from a marginal note found only in Arabic manuscripts!17 The lack of a Syriac revision inflicts serious harm on Boismard and Lamouille’s textual theory. Even more damaging is the fact that 16 H. J. Polotsky first noted this, “Aramaic, Syriac, and Ge‘ez,” Journal of Semitic Studies 9 (1964), 3. See also August Dillmann, Lexicon linguae aethiopicae cum indice latino (Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1865), 109. 17 For a discussion of the transmission history of the appendix itself, see Siegbert Uhlig, “The Last Chapter of Acts in the Ethiopic Version,” in Études éthiopiennes, Vol. 1: Acts de la Xe conference internationale des études éthiopiennes, Paris, 24-28 août 1988 (Paris: Société française pour les études éthiopiennes, 1994), 319–22.

Ethiopic version and “western” text

75

this Arabic version did not modify some early “Western” archetype in line with their overarching theory. The B-text undoubtedly revises the A-text. The following examples should suffice. At 5:17 the A-text takes σὺν αὐτῷ with ἐπλήσθησαν ζήλου. The B-text adds ƇŬÛȑðĈßÕ, “and those with him,” where expected but still retains the A-text’s mistranslation.18 Three verses later the B-text creates another duplication. Unaware that the Arabic translates the same Greek phrase, ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ, the reviser places “and from his prison” (Arabic) after “in his judgment” (A-text). The B-text improves the reading at 9:10 by explaining that Paul saw “a vision” but without correcting the A-text’s erroneous interpretation of “Lord” as the direct object of “seeing” rather than as the subject of “saying.”19 The A-text often translates παράκλησις with ŀðÙĀŀ, which looks like the Ge‘ez word for “teaching” but in fact comes from an alternative/archaic spelling from the root ëãû, “have compassion.” Unfamiliar with this homonym, at 15:31 the reviser translated the Arabic text but also preserved the perceived meaning of his A-text exemplar by changing the noun to ƇëÔĀƍì, “and they taught them,” to fit the new context. At 19:32 the reviser leaves the faulty ƇNjŜƬƦ, “and they remained” (mistaking μὲν οὖν for μενοῦν), found in the A-text and creates a redundancy by adding the Arabic text and doubling ƪųàä, “they cried out.” Absolutely no evidence for a sixth-century Syriac revision exists. Instead the church had to wait seven more centuries for a significant revision, and that from an Arabic text.20 The evidence also precludes theorizing that these editors chose to revise an ancient and otherwise unattested “Western” form of the Ethiopic. Prior to this period, Ethiopian Christians knew only one text—the A-text. All of Boismard and Lamouille’s conclusions about the B-text must be disregarded. The Greek Revision Although the damage to Boismard and Lamouille’s theory is irreparable, 18 See also 7:40; 11:15; 26:13. 19 See also 9:11; 20:36; 21:3; 24:3; and perhaps 18:3. 20 See also Zuurmond, Mark, 107-8; Hofmann and Uhlig, Katholischen Briefen, 60, 72; and Uhlig and Maehlum, Gefangenschaftsbriefe, 46, 76. Ullendorff notes the “good evidence, internal as well as external, of revisions on the basis of Arabic texts” (Ethiopia, 57).

76

niccum

their data for a supposed Alexandrian recension deserves further study. Unrelated to the problems associated with the B-text, the A-text still could preserve vestiges of an earlier “Western” version. Concerning this Boismard argues the inverse of Montgomery’s conclusion: the abbreviated text does not reflect the poor abilities of the earliest translator but actually those of the later reviser. Daunted by the technical nautical language of the last two chapters the editor abandoned his task leaving the “Western” original virtually untouched after 27:13.21 In this case, contrary evidence proves more difficult to amass due to the limited amount of reliable material for Ethiopia’s earliest literary activity and the fact that the oldest Ethiopic manuscript of Acts dates nearly a millennium after the first translation. In the end, though, this proposal of Boismard and Lamouille likewise proves indefensible. If an “assez pur” “Western” text provided the foundation for the poorly executed Alexandrian revision, one would expect the resulting document to exhibit two very different styles—a refined “Western” substratum with coarse Alexandrian expansions. This, in fact, does not occur. Instead, the reader discovers a consistently poor translation.22 For example, descriptive phrases get attached to unexpected (but not necessarily impossible) objects. At 9:31 the A-text reads ŷÜȑ įĻȑŴĀĈĽƨŚŀ, “the entire church,” for ἐκκλησία καθ᾽ ὅλης where καθ᾽ ὅλης modifies the immediately following τῆς Ἰουδαίας.23 When the translator did not know the meaning of a compound verb, s/he either ignored the prepositional prefix or presumed it was synonymous with a similarly constructed verb. Thus at 7:16 Ļēİü translates μετετέθησαν (considered synonymous with ἐτέθησαν) and at 19:39 Ŝŗøŀ translates ἐπιλυθήσεται, the normal rendering of ἀπελυθήσεται.24 Frequently the 21 Boismard, Le Texte Occidental des Actes des Apôtres (rev. ed.; Études Bibliques 40; Paris: Gabalda, 2000), 44–45. 22 The quality of the translation sometimes proves fruitful for the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament since 1) the translator sticks closely to the text and 2) some errors indicate precisely a particular variant reading. The effort does require considerable caution. I discovered only 822 variation units in Acts which could be supported by the Ethiopic with some degree of probability. Only 412 of these could be considered certain. See Niccum, “Acts in Ethiopic,” 250–398. 23 See also 10:37. 24 The latter might be an harmonization (see v. 40).

Ethiopic version and “western” text

77

case endings of nouns are ignored producing quite unusual results. So, in Chapter Seven the brothers reveal themselves to Joseph rather than the opposite (v.13) and “our fathers” received living words, not Moses (v.38). These all occur where the “Western” and Alexandrian texts share the same readings. Why would a reviser choose to alter a perfectly understandable text in these places? Additionally, a close reading of Acts brings to the surface numerous interpretations explainable only from a misconstrued Greek text. These also occur where the two text-types should read alike. In some cases one perhaps could argue that the inept reviser failed to connect the perfectly sensible Ethiopic translation with the Greek Vorlage being consulted, thereby corrupting the text. But this cannot be true in all the cases. What, for example, would motivate a scribe to replace the logical “to an unknown god” at 17:23 with “purify yourselves to God”?25 Note also the following, a small sample of what recurs throughout the book:26 2:47

ƮįÚì, “upon them,” for ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (erroneously listed as an omission in Texte Occidental [1984], 2:18);

3:7

ƇãĝÕ, “and his belly,” for τὰ σφυδρὰ or τὰ σφυρά (presumably misreading τὰ ὀσφύα);27

5:13

ƪĈãǝì, “to harm them,” for κολλᾶσθαι (misread as a form of κολάζω, as also elsewhere);28

10:40–41 ƇƇÔıȑƨĈðƓȑīƌĈĻȑŷÜȑŧèƘİ, “and he permitted him to be heard among all the peoples,” for καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν ἐμφανῆ γένεσθαι, οὐ παντὶ τῷ λαῷ (where οὐ is read as an adverb of place and ἐμφανῆ is probably misread/misheard as ἐμφωνή); 13:36

ƇŝëÖȑīŀŬƘƕȑŬljƗŧİçĀ, “and he slept according to God’s command,” has τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλῇ modifying

25 Mistaking ἀγνώστῳ as an imperative of ἁγνίζω. 26 Additional examples are offered in Niccum, “Acts in Ethiopic,” 35–39, 234–37. 27 A misreading of σφυρὰ as if from σφυρὶς could also explain this reading. The translator may have assumed “basket” referred to a body part and guessed “stomach.” 28 Boismard and Lamouille incorrectly identify the reading, Texte Occidental (1984), 2:35.

78

niccum ἐκοιμήθη;29 15:20

ŧƕƚƍì, “they commanded them,” for ἐπιστεῖλαι (misread as a form of ἐπιτέλλω);

16:21

ŬìŜļ, “they are,” for οὖσιν (misunderstood as third plural instead of participle);

17:25

ƇƪŀȂƇă, “[nor] is he healed,” follows the primary meaning of θεραπεύω, against all other versions;

23:31

ƌĈĻȑŧÙDžûȑŧƱƨð, “into the surrounding cities,” for εἰς τὴν Ἀντιπατρίδα (misdivides, ἀντὶ πατρίδα);

26:7

ŬǯëƱ, “I minister,” for λατρεῦον (presuming the first singular rather than third plural).

More to the point for understanding the phenomenon of the final chapters of Acts, the poorly prepared translator omits texts beyond the pale of his or her limited Greek vocabulary and elementary grammar. Again, this occurs where Boismard’s supposedly “pure” translation of the “Western” text would have provided a quality base text from which the reviser could work. So why would s/he omit Ἐπικουρείων and Στοϊκῶν if already found in the earlier translation of 17:18, especially since the transliterations would have matched so precisely with the Greek? Note also how Σκευᾶ drops from 19:14 because it went unrecognized as a personal name and thus appeared nonsensical. Significantly, the A-text also skips the difficult Ἀδραμυττηνῷ in chapter 27 (verse 2). An “assez pur” Vorlage would also have made the last two omissions unnecessary. A consistency of style thus exists where it should not if Boismard and Lamouille were correct. Another factor also is inconsistent with their theory. The A-text, for example, should contain a fair number of doublets. A reviser of limited linguistic ability working from a Greek text would certainly introduce redundancies. As expected, these occur with regular frequency in the B-text, an obvious revision of a previously existing text. But these 29 The Ethiopic tendency to balance phrases often creates equilibrium where it did not previously exist. It may be that rhythm required the wrong antecedent here. On the other hand, taking a phrase with the wrong antecedent occurs frequently where rhythm plays no role. Either way, one cannot argue that this represents a transposition in the Greek pace Boismard and Lamouille, Texte Occidental (1984), 2:93.

Ethiopic version and “western” text

79

simply do not appear in the A-text! Finally, the evidence is compatible with the already established contours of Ethiopia’s literary development. It corresponds to the transmission history proposed by Montgomery with reference to Acts and found in the critical editions of the Ge‘ez New Testament: Each book was translated from the Greek by natives with little knowledge of the workings of that language. Surprisingly, for centuries these translations went relatively untouched. As the Ethiopian and Arabic worlds began to collide Ethiopian religious leaders recognized the deficiencies of their translations and began to make alterations here and there culminating in a thorough revision sometime between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. The A-text of Acts fairly represents the earliest translation. No evidence for a later revision against a Greek text exists.

Presentation of the Evidence So, can a “Western” Ethiopic text be said to exist? The answer must be “no,” for Boismard and Lamouille’s problems sadly extend beyond the historical.30 Naturally, their preconceived notions about the Ethiopic textual history influenced the practical side of their endeavour. In particular, with a “Western” Urtext behind their two proposed revisions, Boismard and Lamouille feel free to choose any reading as “original” regardless of its age, text-type, or the quality of the document in which it is embedded. The final product thus has little relation to any extant Ethiopic witness. One finds it difficult not to conclude that their reconstructed “Western” text (derived primarily from Greek and Latin 30 The problems persist in subsequent restatements and refinements of their position. E.g. see Boismard and Lamouille, Les Actes de deux Apôtres (Études Bibliques 12–14; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1990), and Boismard, Texte Occidental (2000). Boismard’s methodologies have been soundly criticized elsewhere. See J. W. Childers, “The Syriac Evidence for the ‘Pre-Johannine Text’ of the Gospel: A Study of Method,” in Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (ed. D. G. K. Taylor; TS 3/1; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Birmingham: University Press, 1999), 49–85; Gordon D. Fee, “The Text of John in The Jerusalem Bible: A Critique of the Use of Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism,” JBL 90 (1971), 163–73, and idem, “The Text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: A Contribution to Methodology in the Recovery and Analysis of Patristic Citations,” Bib 52 (1971), 357–94.

80

niccum

sources) determines the contours of their “original” Ethiopic translation. Charges of circular reasoning aside, the use of a late medieval Ethiopic text shaped by an Arabic version to reconstruct the Greek original defies logic. This pales, though, in comparison to their discovery of the “original” text in a sixteenth-century printed edition!31 A few lapses of judgment, however, do not necessarily annul the rest of their research. Unfortunately further examination uncovers a host of shortcomings. An exhaustive investigation falls outside the purview of this article. Instead attention will focus first on the evidence Boismard musters in defence of his position in Texte Occidental (2000) and then on the textual relationship between the Ethiopic version and the Fleury palimpsest (Ith) in Acts 26–27. Boismard’s Defence Because their theory about the Ethiopic version met with no opposition, in his later work Boismard merely restates his position in contrast to Montgomery’s earlier conclusions. In the five pages he devotes to this he records those readings which incontrovertibly substantiate his theory. Boismard first offers nine textual variations establishing, in his opinion, that 1) the Ethiopic preserves “Western” additions (partially in response to accusations that the authors sought only the shorter texts) and that 2) these stem from an earlier Greek Vorlage (textually related to Codex Bezae).32 Indeed, without taking into account the nature of the Ethiopian witnesses or the verifiable origin of many of the readings, the list appears impressive. Closer inspection reduces this list significantly. Four of the readings (5:15; 14:19; 15:23; 18:21) derive from the B-text and can be dismissed as having originated from a late Arabic text. Three more should also be discarded. First, Boismard notes that ms 42 introduces the confession of the Ethiopian eunuch at 8:37. This 31 See Texte Occidental (1984), 1:85–89. They reconstruct 20:16 and 27:3 based in part upon the testimony of the Roman edition even though the editors of that edition translated these passages from the Latin Vulgate due to their lacunose exemplar. This practice is inexcusable since Boismard and Lamouille were aware of the corrupted texts (Texte Occidental [1984], 1:79–80). 32 Texte Occidental (2000), 42.

Ethiopic version and “western” text

81

stands against the testimony of nearly all Ge‘ez manuscripts. On the other hand, such an addition is not surprising in this manuscript which on occasion introduces unusual readings from another source. Second, the addition of “I say to you” in 14:10 also appears in only one A-text manuscript, a tetraglott where influence from the adjoining texts cannot be ruled out. Both of these should be considered external to the Greek manuscript tradition from which the A-text was translated. Third, the Ethiopic does add “and Silas chose to stay” at 15:34, but this hardly registers as a “Western” reading in light of the diverse Greek manuscripts and versions supporting it. On the other hand, Boismard neglects to mention the data in full; here he avoids noting that the Ethiopic lacks the more distinctive μόνος δὲ Ἰούδας ἐπορεύθη of Codex Bezae and the Old Latin. Only two of his nine readings thus indicate any “Western” influence: the addition of “who remained in Jerusalem” at 8:1 and the negative Golden Rule at 15:29. Hence, the best Boismard can offer to justify his assessment of the Ethiopic version as a relatively pure “Western” witness reveals only some “Western” flavour—a result consistent with what is known of the other New Testament books. A look at the full data given in Texte Occidental (1984) would result in a much lower ratio than two out of nine, for the evidence adduced is much weaker and the evidence omitted aligns strongly with the Alexandrian text. Boismard goes on to list six “Western” readings attested only by the Ethiopic and one other major witness, in his opinion further proof of the version’s importance.33 He notes first the omission of 9:12 by Ith and Ethiopic manuscript 530, a 17th century witness to the B-text. The occurrence in only one B-text witness makes this immediately suspect. Upon closer examination any real agreement disappears. The Ethiopic omits a greater amount of material and is easily explained as a result of parablepsis. Rather than preserving the purity of an ancient “Western” predecessor, ms 530 has preserved for posterity the imperfections of its scribe. A cavalier treatment of the text recurs with alarming frequency in Boismard’s presentation of the evidence. Boismard gladly provides evidence for his theory but begrudgingly, if ever, notices the evidence that undermines it. Two more of his important variants fit into this 33 Texte Occidental (2000), 42–43.

82

niccum

category. First, at 2:14 Codex Bezae and ms 42 count “ten” rather than “eleven” in attendance. Again, the culprit in the Ge‘ez text is likely parablepsis. That this manuscript (with all other A-text witnesses) also omits Bezae’s “Apostles” further increases the likelihood that the similarities are accidental. Second, Boismard lists the A-text in support of Bezae’s omission of οὐκ ἀσήμου πόλεως πολίτης at 21:39 while failing to inform the reader that the Ethiopic contains ÔDŽû, “city,” and also omits Bezae’s addition of γεγεννημένος. The A-text thus agrees with no other Greek mss or versions due entirely to the limitations of its translator. The three remaining passages have commonalities, but a genetic relationship seems improbable. Bernice does not appear among the dignitaries listed in 26:30 in both the A-text and Ith. It is possible that both sources omit the phrase due to its difficulty, whether construing the Greek as pairing Bernice with the governor instead of the king or considering it socially unacceptable to include her in conversations regarding Paul’s legal status. Still, the differences outweigh the similarities. The Ethiopic omits much more material and omits an equivalent for the palimpsest’s omnes, highly unusual considering the propensity to insert ŷÜ, “all,” wherever possible. At 26:26 both Ith and the Ethiopic omit οὐ πείθομαι. At the very least, both similarly untangle a difficult Greek construction, λανθάνειν γὰρ αὐτὸν τούτων οὐ πείθομαι οὐθέν. Since the A-text preserves the rest of the verse and Ith does not, one should avoid presuming consanguinity. That homoiarcton caused the longer omission of Ith should also seriously be considered (credo^credis; cf. Codex Gigas). Considering the larger contexts, including 1) the expanded vocabulary and more difficult grammatical constructions in the last chapters of Acts and 2) the previously identified tendency of the early Ethiopic text to mutilate more sophisticated Greek formulations, positing a similar approach to an increasingly difficult Greek text seems exponentially better here than Boismard’s proposal. These readings prove at most a shared ignorance of Greek. Boismard, of course, thinks otherwise. He boasts that this overwhelming evidence justifies reconstructing some of the original “Western” text primarily or solely on Ethiopic attestation. He offers two examples. For the first he catalogues eleven Ge‘ez witnesses presumably supporting καὶ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς ὡσεὶ πῦρ at 2:3. In actuality, only the A-text supports the omission of διαμεριζόμενοι γλῶσσαι. One can easily see

Ethiopic version and “western” text

83

why a person with little grasp of the Greek language (and a Christian tradition largely untouched by the account of Pentecost) might find this construction problematic, especially the use of the word γλῶσσαι in this context.34 The second of Boismard’s “original” readings displays in a different way how the translator struggled with the text of Acts. The A-text of 12:2 has Herod kill John instead of James. Little commends this as an original reading. The translator of the A-text finds the use of names in Acts horribly difficult to fathom.35 Furthermore, since “James” plays a significant role elsewhere in the book, the scribe probably corrected a perceived error in the Greek Vorlage. Whereas two out of Boismard’s first nine passages actually agree with his Greek “Western” witnesses, out of his eight passages supposedly displaying explicit “Western” readings none do so. The data offered to buttress the Ethiopic’s “Western” character for the end of the Book of Acts ends up falling short. The Ethiopic and the Fleury Palimpsest The Fleury palimpsest (Ith) plays an important role in Boismard and Lamouille’s reconstruction process.36 They regard it a major witness to the “Western” text and its importance increases in the last part of Acts because the Coptic Glazier Codex (G67) contains only the first fourteen chapters of the book, Codex Bezae lacks the last six chapters, and the Harklean Syriac offers no marginal notations for chapters 26–28. But the palimpsest itself breaks off at 27:13. Boismard and Lamouille, 34 The B-text manuscripts add the expected equivalent but do not change the person of the verb, thus providing another indicator that the B-text revised the A-text and not some hypothetical common ancestor. 35 The A-text, for example, does not include the cognomen Λυσίας. The translator may have omitted “Lysias” due to the previous references only to a “Claudius” (11:28; 18:2) or because “Lysias” appears as a character later in the book (see 24:7 v.l., 22). The A-text interprets Pontius as Pilate’s place of origin (4:27). Acts 24:27 reads ὁ Φῆλιξ Πόρκιον Φῆστον. Despite the case endings which make the text easier to comprehend, the three names in immediate succession prove too much for the translator. The reference to Porcius Festus drops out completely. Similarly, the collocation of Sergius with Paulus at 13:6 confounds the translator. 36 In addition to Boismard and Lamouille, Texte Occidental (1984), readings for Ith come from Hans von Soden, Das Lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1909).

84

niccum

therefore, list a number of parallels between the Ethiopic version and the Old Latin manuscript for chapters 26 and 27 in order to justify leaning heavily on the former’s testimony from 27:14 to the end of the book. As before, however, the evidence does not support their conclusions. At 26:26 they suggest that the Latin apud quem represents παρ᾽ ᾧ, a reading otherwise unattested.37 Apart from their questionable reconstruction of the Greek Vorlage, their distinction between πρὸς ὃν and the non-existent Greek variant παρ᾽ ᾧ cannot be maintained with reference to ƕīŋįÕ, “which to him.” ŋī may translate either preposition,38 the actually attested reading (πρός) being the more likely.39 Both witnesses omit σπείρης Σεβαστῆς at 27:1. Two things militate against a genetic relationship. First, the sources clearly represent different text-types. Ith preserves the longer, “Western” reading: et ita legatus mitti eum caesari [iudicavit. Et in] crastinum vocavit centurionem quendam nomine iulium et tradidit ei paulum cum ceteris cus[todiis]. The A-text, although struggling to understand the Greek in places, clearly depends upon an Alexandrian text.40 Second, both versions treat the omission differently. The Fleury palimpsest may have misunderstood the Greek phrase and just avoided it. More likely the reference to the Imperial Cohort fell out accidentally.41 Considering 37 Their method of retroversion has justly been criticized. This is a recurrent problem with Boismard’s citations of the Ethiopic evidence. The frequent presentation of Ethiopic readings in either their supposed Greek or Latin equivalents exacerbates the problem. For issues related to the use of Ethiopic, see Hofmann, “Das Neue Testament in Äthiopischer Sprache,” in Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuentestaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare (ANTF 5; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), 351–60; and John R. Miles, Retroversion and Text Criticism: The Predictability of Syntax in an Ancient Translation from Greek to Ethiopic (SBLSCS 17; Chico: Scholars Press, 1985). 38 Cf. 2:47; 9:43. 39 The latter half of this verse and the omission of Bernice in 26:30 have already been treated above. 40 “And then he commanded them to take us to Italy and the great ones received Paul and the other prisoners and he handed them over to one named Justus.” 41 Suggested by J. H. Ropes, The Beginnings of Christianity Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 3: The Text of Acts (eds. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; London: Macmillan, 1925), 240.

Ethiopic version and “western” text

85

the propensity of the A-text to omit multiple designations, the Ethiopian translator’s unfamiliarity with Greek and Roman custom may also have produced an omission. However, this does not fully explain the presence of ƫĈǝĈ, “Justus,” here (with “Julius” appearing in the following narrative). Somehow Ἰουλίῳ σπείρης Σεβαστῆς became Ἰουστῆς or something similar. The identification of Justus as σεβομένου in 18:7 probably contributed to the development of this reading. Regardless, no literary relationship exists between Ith and the A-text here. The stark contrast between the A-text and this Old Latin manuscript reappears in the following verse. The Ethiopic agrees with the Alexandrian text sharing neither the omissions nor the additions relative to that text-type found in the Old Latin and Syriac Peshitta. The connection identified by Boismard and Lamouille occurs only with the later Ethiopic manuscripts revised from the Arabic (B-text). This reading, therefore, is irrelevant. The same holds true for 27:3 where they compare the Ith with the Roman printed edition.42 Boismard and Lamouille also note the shared transposition of ἐναντίους to before τοὺς ἀνέμους εἶναι in 27:4, supposedly supported by both the A-text and Ith. Transpositions, however, occur so frequently in the Ethiopic translation that only rarely can one draw reliable conclusions about the word order of the Vorlage. Such a case does not exist here. The only possible reason for presuming a transposition is the 42 They also make an erroneous comparison with the Georgian version here. According to J. W. Childers, they apparently relied on Garitte’s Latin translation and assumed from the use of praecepit (which ubrzana frequently communicates) an original ἐκελεύσεν (see Gérard Garitte, L’ancienne version géorgienne des Actes des Apôtres [Bibliothèque du Muséon 38; Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1955]). This overlooks the fact that the Georgian root translates a wide range of words in the Greek New Testament including ἐπιτρέπω (e.g. in Matt 8:21, 31; Mark 10:4; Luke 8:32 et al.). “In his Glossarium ibericum, Molitor tends to give one tidy Latin equivalent for each Georgian term, in this case brzanebai = praecipere. However, he goes on to list 16 different Greek words which the term renders in the Gospels and Acts” (see Joseph Molitor, Glossarium ibericum in quattuor evangelia et Actus Apostolorum antiquioris versionem etiam textus chanmeti et haemeti complectens, Vol. 1, 5-A [CSCO 228; Louvain: CSCO, 1962], 30–31). Childers suggests that Boismard and Lamouille apparently did not pursue the matter that far, although thoroughness should be considered a prerequisite for arguing such nuances. This was conveyed in personal correspondence dated 5 July 1999.

86

niccum

palimpsest’s reading, but once more the two witnesses diverge significantly in the rest of the passage. One should not argue for an explicit connection here. For 27:8 they note that both the Ethiopic and Ith omit παραλεγόμενοι αὐτὴν and read κατηντήσαμεν instead of ἤλθομεν. This, too, is misleading. First, īDzèŗ serves κατηντήσαμεν and ἤλθομεν equally well. Second, concerning the omission, the evidence for verses 7–8 deserves to be presented in full: 03 – ἐν ἱκαναῖς δὲ ἡμέραις βραδυπλοοῦντες καὶ μόλις γενόμενοι κατὰ τὴν Κνίδον, μὴ προσεῶντος ἡμᾶς τοῦ ἀνέμου, ὑπεπλεύσαμεν τὴν Κρήτην κατὰ Σαλμώνην, μόλις τε παραλεγόμενοι αὐτὴν ἤλθομεν εἰς τόπον τινὰ καλούμενον Καλοὺς Λιμένας, ᾧ ἐγγὺς ἦν πόλις Λασέα. Ith – et cum tarde navigaremus per aliquod [tempus, v]enimus Gnidum: et inde cum tulissemus, legē[tes Cret]en, devenimus in portum bonum, ubi Anchis ci[vitas er]at: A-text – ƇīNjŜƭƪȑëƊƓàȑŬðƓǸİȑīDzèŗȑēřƲŜȑƇĉīȑŲ àŧŗȑŗȁĈȑŗDŽƱŗȑĘÿǛŜȑŬŜĻȑăĀðÿŜȒƇŬðƓǸİȑīDzèŗȑ İçûȑƕĈìȑóŚƪȒîŋƬĀȑĘüİȑÔDŽûȑÞăƨȑ And with a delay of days we with difficulty arrived at Knidon. And when the wind prevented us, we sailed to Krētēn by way of Sarmerēn. And with difficulty we came to a region by the name of “Beautiful Residences” near the city of Lasaya.

The only notable convergence is the common failure to understand παραλέγεσθαι. Clearly here too the Ethiopic version lacks Latin and “Western” influence. The differences are much greater than any similarities. The parallel with illic fecissemus in v.9 falls out of consideration because ms 20 omits it and likely preserves the oldest form of the text. For other reasons one should question the shared omission of ἤδη proposed by Boismard. The Ethiopic translator of Acts never provides an explicit equivalent for the word, perhaps because the tense of the accompanying verb implies it. Neither should the supposed parallel in omission in v. 12 be admitted since the texts otherwise lack agreement.43 Both 43 Even Boismard and Lamouille admit this—see “Mais pour les vv. 11–

Ethiopic version and “western” text

87

texts also share an omission in the next verse but little else. Ms 20 omits even more. All of these attest a difficulty with the Greek text and not a genetic relationship. Only one of the readings catalogued by Boismard and Lamouille proves of possible interest. At 26:29 the A-text omits σήμερον with Greek manuscript 323, Old Latin manuscripts Ith, p, the Georgian version, Chrysostom, and Ephrem. These disparate witnesses may represent theological tradition (perhaps not wanting to limit Paul’s gospel plea to just one day) rather than textual lineage. Except for this, all of the passages cited by Boismard and Lamouille reveal a shared ignorance of Greek, nothing more.

Conclusion As Boismard and Lamouille worked on their massive opus, they found the A-text’s greatly abbreviated narrative in the last two chapters of Acts of tremendous interest. Their discovery of the Ethiopic version’s value was especially fortuitous in light of the fragmentary nature of their major “Western” witnesses in the latter part of Acts. But the Atext clearly fell within the Alexandrian tradition, and this created a problem.44 In order to preserve the “Western” omissions of the A-text and the “Western” additions of the B-text, they necessarily had to argue for a common Vorlage.45 An examination of the evidence, however, revealed serious methodological deficiencies and found their historical reconstruction faulty at every point. Two Ethiopic text-types do exist, but not descended from a common archetype. A (fifth century?) translator of limited 12, h a un texte très original qui n’est pas attesté par Eth.2.3,” Texte Occidental (1984), 1:89. The text of 27:1–13 Adolf Jülicher labels “verwildert” (“Kritische Analyse der lateinischen Übersetzung der Apostelgeschichte” ZNW 15 [1914], 168). 44 See Niccum, “Acts in Ethiopic,” 41–62, for full documentation. In those variation units where the Greek Vorlage could be reconstructed with certainty, the A-text agreed with P45 88.4% and Codex Vaticanus 87.1% on the top end of the spectrum yet only 7.1% with the Harklean Syriac, 25.8% with the Fleury Palimpsest, and 32.4% with Codex Bezae. 45 The character of the “Western” readings Boismard and Lamouille find in each version generally tend towards expansion in the B-text and abbreviation in the A-text, though this characterization is an over-simplification.

88

niccum

abilities produced the A-text, following the wording of an early Greek Vorlage as best s/he could. In the Ethiopian church it served as the text of Acts for centuries with little influence from other versions or ecclesiastical traditions. Beginning in the thirteenth century, scribes began to fill in some of the holes they found in their text by way of comparison with the Arabic (and perhaps occasionally with other versions). By the fifteenth century the need for a new edition was clear. A new version thoroughly updated from the Arabic began circulating by the seventeenth century. It eventually gained the ascendancy but never completely displaced the A-text. The Greek exemplar employed by that first translator contained some “Western” readings, but the evidence offers nothing more definitive. Of the seventeen most persuasive readings presented by Boismard in defence of his position only two withstand scrutiny. Imprecise definitions and faulty text critical practices aid the misinterpretation of the evidence. In addition to the larger issue of determining what, if anything, constitutes a “Western” text, Boismard clearly has no framework for defining the parameters of a reading or variation unit. For this reason ms 530 and Ith can preserve the original text at 9:12 even though neither preserves the same omission and one of them resulted from parablepsis. The manifold issues affecting retroversion are blithely ignored too. The characteristics of the Ethiopic language in general and of particular manuscripts receive no notice. When Boismard reconstructs the Greek text behind the early version, he frequently errs. In sum, text critical decisions are made apart from knowledge of the witnesses; a fatal flaw.46 So then, the “Western” text of Acts proves to be a phantom in Ethiopia as well.

46 “KNOWLEDGE OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD PRECEDE FINAL JUDGEMENT UPON READINGS,” Westcott & Hort, New Testament, 2:31 (emphasis theirs).

The Text of the Epistles Sixty Years After: An Assessment of Günther Zuntz’s Contribution to Text-Critical Methodology and History Michael W. Holmes, Bethel University In the opening pages of his “disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum,” Günther Zuntz laments the separation so evident in his day between textual criticism and exegesis. With respect to textual criticism, Many… tend to excuse themselves from critical exertion, maintaining that this work has been done, once and for all, by Westcott and Hort and their fellow revisors—as though, since their days, nothing essential had happened in this field. It is characteristic that the editor of the latest full commentary on one of the New Testament epistles—a work otherwise of great labour and merit—has felt justified in taking their sixty-years-old text, en bloc, for the basis of his exposition… Modern expounders of the New Testament… sometimes maintain that they dedicate themselves to the elucidation of the meaning of Scripture, leaving the problems of its wording to the specialists. 1

To Zuntz’s lament this author can only respond: how much more so 1 Günther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (Schweich Lectures, 1946; London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1953), 2.

89

90

Holmes

today! In commentary after commentary (if the topic is even mentioned), in technical essay after technical essay (assuming variants are even noticed), one finds the text of NA27/UBS4, our current “standard text,” adopted en bloc (as Zuntz puts it), and whatever few textual notes there may be seldom do more than list the evidence and then cite Metzger’s Textual Commentary in lieu of any significant discussion. But as Zuntz demonstrates, textual criticism and exegesis are not separable, inasmuch as they “are two aspects of one and the same endeavour.” That is, “Textual criticism is an integral element and not a detachable preliminary,” and in the interaction between it and exegesis lies “the fruitful antinomy of all interpretation… the light of proper perception springs from the continuous interaction of the two poles.”2 Moreover, textual criticism provides a critical perspective not just for the study of the text of the New Testament, but of the history of its transmission and interpretation, and for the history of the early Christian movement, a movement which both was shaped by and shaped the text of its newly-emerging Scriptures. This is particularly the case for the crucial century and a half or so for which our resources are particularly scarce and incomplete—the late first through early third centuries of the common era. Here textual criticism can bring to light evidence not otherwise accessible, and which we ignore to our own detriment. These points (the latter in particular) I hope to illustrate in offering, in the year of the sixtieth anniversary of Zuntz’s magisterial Schweich Lectures, the following assessment of his contributions to the study of the New Testament text.

Introduction At Romans 14:21 (… μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον μηδὲ ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προσκόπτει ἢ σκανδαλίζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ) the extant manuscripts preserve at the end of the verse a nice selection of variant readings: a) προσκόπτει ἢ σκανδαλίζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ P46vid ēc B D F G Ψ 0209 33 1881 Byz lat syh sa Ambst 2 Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 2, 3. Cf. Gordon D. Fee, “On Text and Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers, (ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 165– 83; also Michael W. Holmes, “Reasoned Eclecticism and the Text of Romans,” in Romans and the People of God, (eds. S. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 187–202, esp. 201–02.

text of the epistles sixty years after

91

b) προσκόπτει ēa A C 048 6 81 945 1506 1739 pc r syp bo Marcion Origen

c) λυπεῖται ē*

d) λυπεῖται

ἢ σκανδαλίζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ

P

e) προσκόπτει

ἢ ἀσθενεῖ

sypal

f ) σκανδαλίζεται ἢ προσκὀπτει

ἢ ἀσθενεῖ

1984 1985 m Chrys

The six forms of this passage essentially resolve into a choice between a) and b).3 In the Textual Commentary written on its behalf, the UBS Editorial Committee makes the following points in support of the shorter reading, b): “The Textus Receptus incorporates a Western expansion [i.e., reading a)]… which gained wide circulation… Other variations in various witnesses suggest that the original text was modified or expanded by copyists who recollected 1 Cor 8.11–13.”4 On the other hand, a case may be made for the longer reading, a): first, the terms used in the longer reading are characteristically Pauline, yet occur here in a distinctive manner that cannot be derived from other Pauline texts (including 1 Cor 8:11–13). Second, the competing readings can easily be accounted for as due to homoioteleuton (b, e), the influence of λυπεῖται in 14:15 (c, d), or scribal carelessness (f ). Third, the longer reading is broadly supported by proto-Alexandrian, Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western witnesses; it is not at all clear that the UBS committee’s dismissive labelling of it as a “Western intrusion” is justified. The competing arguments for b) and a) respectively may be seen as paradigmatic of two significantly different ways of comprehending 3 Reading c) is likely a variant form of b) influenced by Rom 14:15; e) and f ) appear to be variant forms of a); and d) apparently conflates elements of both c) and a). 4 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 469; cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 2:725, n. 1.

92

Holmes

the early history of the New Testament text and its transmission. On the one hand, the UBS Committee’s case for rejecting the longer reading a), which links it with both the Textus Receptus and the Western text, is fundamentally Hortian in its proposed analysis of the data. On the other hand, one may suggest that the case in support of the longer reading reflects both the methodological approach and historical views of Günther Zuntz, particularly as expressed in The Text of the Epistles. On an earlier occasion I characterized The Text of the Epistles as “one of the best extended examples of a genuinely balanced reasoned eclectic approach to textual criticism,” and suggested that Zuntz’s work “ought to be seen as paradigmatic for the discipline in at least three respects: in terms of practice, theory, and the history of the transmission.”5 These three areas—practice, method, and historical reconstruction—offer a useful and convenient framework within which to arrange this assessment of Zuntz’s contributions.

Zuntz and Text-Critical Practice With respect to text-critical practice, Zuntz’s approach is invariant: after assembling all the available data for a particular instance of textual variation, he reconstructs the history of its transmission and corruption in order to isolate the oldest surviving readings at that particular point, which he then subjects to a detailed examination, employing a wide and instructive range of criteria and a well-developed critical acumen. In many respects the criteria he employs are quite traditional, even commonplace, but this is hardly a matter for surprise, in that nearly all the criteria in use today were formulated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.6 One significant criterion of more recent development, 5 Holmes, “Reasoned Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, (eds. Bart D. Ehrman and M. W. Holmes; SD 46; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 339 (a chapter with which the present essay shares a few sentences and some quotations). 6 On this topic see in particular Eldon J. Epp, “The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual Criticism: Solution or Symptom?” HTR 69 (1976), 217–29 (reprinted in Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism [SD 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 144–54; reprinted and updated in PNTTC, 125–73); Epp,

text of the epistles sixty years after

93

involving the possible impact of Atticism on the transmission of the text, is widely associated with the name of G. D. Kilpatrick and a seminal 1963 essay;7 Zuntz, however, was already discussing this matter in 1946.8 Moreover, he also anticipates (perhaps under the influence of his teacher Paul Maas9) a point more fully developed later on by E. C. Colwell and others after him (e.g., Birdsall, Fee, Royse):10 the need to understand the habits and characteristics of the scribe of a particular manuscript in order to properly assess the evidence it offers (in his case, P46 in particular11). What catches one’s attention is the skill and sensitivity with which he employs the criteria, new or old: no mechanical application here, but a careful and, above all, thoughtful assessment of the applicability “Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism: Moving from the Nineteenth Century to the Twenty-first Century,” in Rethinking New Textual Criticism (ed. D. A. Black; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 20–34; reprinted and updated in PNTTC, 641–97. 7 G. D. Kilpatrick, “Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament,” in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze. Festschrift J. Schmid (eds. J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mussner; Regensburg, 1963), 125–37; reprinted in Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays of G. D. Kilpatrick (ed. J. K. Elliott; BETL 96; Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1990), 15–32. 8 Cf. Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 19, 46, 48, n. 8, 52, 191. 9 Paul Maas, Textual Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), 14. 10 E. C. Colwell, “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship (ed. J. P. Hyatt; Nashville: Abingdon, 1965), 370–89 (reprinted as “Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75,” in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament [NTTS 9; Leiden: Brill, and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969], 106–24); J. Neville Birdsall, The Bodmer Papyrus of the Gospel of John (Tyndale Lecture, 1958; London: Tyndale Press, 1960); idem, “Rational Eclecticism and the Oldest Manuscripts: A Comparative Study of the Bodmer and Chester Beatty Papyri of the Gospel of Luke,” in Studies in New Testament Language and Text, (ed. J. K. Elliott; NovTSupp 44; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 39–51; Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II (P66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics (SD 34; Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1968); J. R. Royse, “Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri” (PhD dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA, 1981); idem, “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament,” in Ehrman and Holmes, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, 239–52. 11 See Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 17–29, and all of Chapter II.

94

Holmes

and suitability of the available criteria in order to ascertain which are genuinely relevant to the particular variant at hand. One likely sees in this skill and sensitivity some influence of Zuntz’s classical background and training. The thoroughness with which Zuntz collects the available evidence also draws attention: Greek manuscripts in great detail, of course, but also the versions (especially the Latin and Syriac), citations from Church fathers—again versional as well as Greek—and (on points lexical, grammatical, and stylistic) classical citations in no small quantity. If nothing else, he reminds us of how much evidence is to be found outside the boundaries of a critical apparatus. Finally, one cannot help but notice not only the skill but even more the flair with which Zuntz uses his tools: in his hands, the practice of textual criticism truly is, to borrow Metzger’s phrase, both a science and an art.12 If a handbook such as Metzger’s offers a pedagogically sound introduction, the reading of Text of the Epistles is a graduate course on the subject.

Zuntz and Text-Critical Method As Zuntz reminds us, the roots of modern text-critical method reach back to Erasmus (1516), and from him may be traced through Bentley (1720), Bengel (1734), and Griesbach (2d ed. 1796–1806) to Lachmann (1831). Westcott and (especially) Hort (1881) then organized, synthesized, and articulated with an extraordinary clarity and logical rigour (betraying Hort’s earlier training as a botanical scientist) the work of their predecessors in now-classic form: their work sets forth, in all its essentials, the method most widely known today as “reasoned eclecticism.”13 It is in this methodological tradition that Zuntz clearly 12 Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York/Oxford: University Press, 1964), v; 4th ed., with Ehrman (2005), xv. 13 By “reasoned eclecticism” I mean an approach that seeks to take into account all available evidence, both external (i.e., that provided by the manuscripts themselves) and internal (considerations having to do with the habits, mistakes, and tendencies of scribes, or the style and thought of an author). Central to this approach is a fundamental guideline: the variant most likely to be original is the one that best accounts for the origin of all competing variants in terms of both external and internal evidence. Reasoned eclecticism,

text of the epistles sixty years after

95

places himself,14 as have, for that matter, the vast majority of textual critics since Lachmann’s day. It is a tradition that continues to be widely embraced; indeed, a survey of the contemporary scene reveals a remarkable degree of consensus with regard to method among reasoned eclectics.15 A survey, whether of introductory discussions or chapters (such as those by Metzger, the Alands, Fee, Amphoux, Holmes, or Epp) or of more theoretical statements (such as those by Colwell, Birdsall, or Greeven), reveals, under superficial differences of labels, categorization, or arrangement, a high degree of uniformity with regard to methodology, the key points and aspects of which can all be found in Zuntz.16 therefore, may be differentiated on the one hand from approaches that rely primarily (if not almost exclusively) on internal criteria (usually labelled “thoroughgoing” or “rigorous” eclecticism), and on the other hand from approaches that rely primarily (if not exclusively) upon external evidence (such as “historical documentary” or “Majority text” approaches). See Holmes, “The Case for Reasoned Eclecticism,” in Black, Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, 77–100; also idem, “Reasoned Eclecticism,” 336–39. For “thoroughgoing eclecticism,” see J. K. Elliott, “The Case for Thoroughgoing Eclecticism,” in Black, Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, 101–24; also Elliott, “Thoroughgoing Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Ehrman and Holmes, Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, 321–35; Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude ( JSNTSup 135; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 13–25. For “historical documentary” see Epp, “Textual Criticism,” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (eds. Eldon J. Epp and G. W. MacRae, SJ; Philadelphia: Fortress; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 92–94 (reprinted in Epp and Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 32– 34; reprinted and updated as, “Decision Points in Past, Present, and Future New Testament Textual Criticism,” in PNTTC, 227–83). For the “Majority Text” approach see Daniel B. Wallace, “The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique,” in Ehrman and Holmes, Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, 297–320; and for “Byzantine Priority” see Maurice A. Robinson, “The Case for Byzantine Priority,” in Black, Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, 125–39. 14 See Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 4–8. 15 Noted also by Birdsall, “The Recent History of New Testament Textual Criticism (from Westcott & Hort, 1881, to the present),” ANRW 26.1: 169, 176–77. 16 Cf. Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 207–46 (Metzger and Ehrman, 4th ed., 300–43); Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New

96

Holmes

But this seeming unanimity with regard to method hides some major questions about or challenges to this method or approach. Indeed, here we encounter one of the paradoxes of contemporary textual criticism: a time of apparent widespread agreement with regard to method is also marked by 1) substantial disagreement about the lasting status of that method, and 2) uncertainty with regard to the results it has produced. With regard to the first point, namely the disagreement about the lasting status of reasoned eclecticism, some distinguished textual Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Leiden: Brill, 1989; 1st German ed., 1981), 280–316; earlier adumbrated in the introduction to NA26 (p. 43*); cf. K. Aland, “The Twentieth-Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Text and Interpretation (eds. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson; Cambridge: University Press, 1979), 9–11; Fee, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors (rev. ed.; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 81–91; L. Vaganay and C.-B. Amphoux, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (2d ed.; trans. J. Heimerdinger; amplified and updated by Amphoux and Heimerdinger; Cambridge: University Press, 1991), 73–88; Holmes, “New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Introducing New Testament Interpretation (ed. Scot McKnight; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 54–63; cf. idem, “Textual Criticism,” in Interpreting the New Testament, (eds. D. A. Black and D. S. Dockery; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 47–73; Epp, “Textual Criticism in the Exegesis of the New Testament, with an Excursus on Canon,” in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 45–73 (reprinted and updated in PNTTC, 461–95); Colwell, “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,” in Transitions in Biblical Scholarship (ed. J. C. Rylaarsdam; Essays in Divinity 6; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 143–55 (reprinted in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism, 160–71); Birdsall, “The New Testament Text,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, (eds. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans; Cambridge: University Press, 1970), 311–18; cf. idem, “Recent History,” 176; H. Greeven, “Text und Textkritik der Bibel. II. Neues Testament,” RGG 6.721-23; cf. also A. Wikenhauser and I. Schmid, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (6th ed.; Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1973), 184–86; H. Zimmermann, Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre: Darstellung der historisch-kritischen Methode (rev. Klaus Kliesch; 7th ed.; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1982), 41–50; W. Egger, Methodenlehre zum Neuen Testament: Einführung in linguistische und historisch-kritische Methoden (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1987), 52–53.

text of the epistles sixty years after

97

critics have argued that the method is only a temporary expedient. As long ago as 1956—just three years after the publication of Text of the Epistles—K. W. Clark maintained that reasoned eclecticism was the only procedure available to us at this stage, but it is very important to recognize that it is a secondary and tentative method. It is not a new method nor a permanent one. The eclectic method cannot by itself create a text to displace Westcott-Hort and its offspring. It is suitable only for exploration and experimentation… The eclectic method, by its very nature, belongs to an age like ours in which we know only that the traditional theory of the text is faulty but cannot yet see clearly to correct the fault.17

Subsequently Eldon J. Epp voiced the “hope that the eclectic method can be replaced by something more permanent—a confidently reconstructed history and a persuasive theory of the text.” Such a development would facilitate the use of “more objective methods (like the historical-documentary method).”18 Furthermore, “only in this way can a solid foundation be laid for understanding the history of our New Testament text and… only in this way can we secure a large measure of confidence that we are genuinely in touch with the actual, historical 17 K. W. Clark, “The Effect of Recent Textual Criticism upon New Testament Studies,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (eds. W. D. Davies and D. Daube; Cambridge: University Press, 1956), 37–38 (reprinted in K. W. Clark, The Gentile Bias and Other Essays, [ed. J. L. Sharpe, III; NovTSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 1980], 75–76); cf. idem, “Today’s Problems with the Critical Text of the New Testament,” in Transitions in Biblical Scholarship, 165–67 (reprinted in Gentile Bias, 128–30), esp. 166 (129): “We cannot approve eclectic emendation as a permanent technique of criticism because it is by its very nature tentative.” Cf. also A. F. J. Klijn: “those who, by the way of the eclectic method, try to restore the original text have reached markedly disparate results. The eclectic method seems to be the only adequate method to regain the original text, but it also appears to lead us into complete chaos” (“In Search of the Original Text of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert [eds. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966], 104). 18 Epp, “Textual Criticism,” 102, 103 (reprinted in Epp and Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 41, 42; PNTTC, 276, 277).

98

Holmes

origin of the New Testament writings.”19 Under these conditions, perhaps “difficulties in the eclectic method would disappear—and perhaps also the eclectic method as we know it would itself disappear!”20 Even among those who appear to champion an eclectic approach, one finds statements that appear to leave open the possibility Epp envisioned: “From the perspective of our present knowledge,” say the Alands, “this local-genealogical method [i.e., reasoned eclecticism]… is the only one which meets the requirements of the… textual tradition.”21 In these expressions of discontent with reasoned eclecticism, one may discern at least two separate elements: one is grounded in a desire for objectivity, and the other reflects a genuine difference of opinion about method. The first point will come up again later, and we will deal with it at that time; for now, let us focus on the methodological issue. The expressed preference or hope for a “historical-documentary” approach, one that would, it is claimed, eliminate the need for reasoned eclecticism, is misdirected from the start in that it overlooks a fundamental methodological limitation of any documentary approach. The basic point had been made already by Hort with characteristic force: the most that a purely documentary approach can achieve is the discovery of what is relatively original: whether the readings thus relatively original were also the readings of the autograph is another question, which can never be answered in the affirmative with absolute decision except where the autograph itself is extant… Even in a case in which it were possible to show that the extant documents can be traced back to two originals which diverged from the autograph itself without any intermediate common ancestor, we could never be quite sure that where they differed one or other must have the true reading, since they might independently introduce different changes in the same place, say owing to some obscurity in the writing of a particular word.22

What Zuntz contributed in The Text of the Epistles was a pragmatic 19 Ibid.,” 93 (PNTTC, 33). 20 Epp, “Eclectic Method,” 249 (reprinted in Epp and Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 168; PNTTC, 165). 21 K. Aland and B. Aland, introduction to NA26, 43* (emphasis added). 22 B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2, Introduction and Appendix (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881), 66.

text of the epistles sixty years after

99

demonstration and confirmation in practice, variant upon variant, reading by reading, of the truth of Hort’s point.23 Over and over in Zuntz’s work one encounters variation units in which each of two competing readings can be traced back to the earliest discernable stage of the manuscript tradition. In such instances, documentary evidence alone is powerless to decide between them: it cannot tell us which is right and which is wrong (or, to indicate yet a third and equally important possibility, that neither is right). In such cases documentary evidence can, as Zuntz observes, “throw a very considerable weight into the scales of probability,” but “will not by itself suffice to determine [a] choice between competing readings… Recensio alone can no longer settle any really problematic point.”24 Here we have, I would suggest, a lasting and substantial contribution by Zuntz: the confirmation of the theoretical and pragmatic bases for the practice of reasoned eclecticism. It is no temporary method or stopgap measure; it is our best and only way forward. Zuntz has made the case for it, both in theory and in practice, and has, in my estimation, settled the matter. To continue to wish for a new “documentary” method or for new discoveries that will eliminate the need for reasoned eclecticism is to persist in a false hope. Let us now turn to the second matter raised above, namely the uncertainty with regard to the results obtained by reasoned eclecticism. Specifically, the problem, at least as some perceive it, is the continuing “Hortian” face of current critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Westcott & Hort, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Scrivener (to name three other key editors contemporary with Westcott & Hort) had available to them perhaps 45 majuscule (uncial) MSS and approximately 150 minuscule MSS (more were known, but not yet available)—and no papyri.25 Today the register of majuscule MSS stands at over 300, that of the minuscules at over 2850, and the list of papyri now numbers 23 Coincidentally at almost the same moment Colwell was also restating, in a more abstract manner, the same point: Colwell, “Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and its Limitations,” JBL 66 (1947): 109–33 (= Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism, 63–83). 24 Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 282–83. 25 The numbers regarding MSS available to Westcott & Hort are from Epp, “Twentieth-Century Interlude,” in Epp and Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 86; PNTTC, 64.

100

Holmes

118 (and the qualitative increase, moreover, may be greater than the merely quantitative—cf. the Bodmer papyri). Yet despite this staggering increase in the number of known witnesses (which does not even begin to mention the increase in our knowledge of the lectionaries and the versions), the critical editions currently in widest use agree, both in general and in detail, with the text printed by Westcott & Hort.26 And so the question has been raised: “If exegetes still use a text only moderately different from what they used a hundred years ago, what have our vastly increased manuscript discoveries and analysis done for us?”27 The implied answer seems to be, “not much.” This question, however, is not a new one: Zuntz had already raised nearly the same question decades earlier. Zuntz, however, raised it not in reference to Westcott & Hort but to Lachmann a half century before them—a move which makes the question only more pointed: as the inheritors of this tradition and commanding a store of invaluable material, we find ourselves stuck at the point which Bentley’s genius had discerned and which Lachmann, in all essentials, reached more than a century [now nearly a century and three-quarters] ago. Why?28

The answer, Zuntz points out, is that the editors of “our modern editions… whatever theories they may hold or reject, follow one narrow section of the evidence, namely, the non-Western Old Uncials”—or now, the non-Western papyri and old uncials. This has resulted, overall, in “a vastly improved text—and subsequently a deadlock.” 29 And this is, for the most part, where New Testament textual criticism as a whole still finds itself today, a half century after Zuntz. Indeed, if anything, our current text looks more Hortian than ever. To understand better the problem as well as to appreciate Zuntz’s solution, we need to rehearse briefly the role that recensio has played in 26 NA25 differed from WH in only 558 instances, and the difference between WH and NA26-27/UBS3-4 is even less. 27 Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism?” in Epp and Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 113 (emphasis added); PNTTC, 191; cf. Epp, “Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism,” 51 (where the question is essentially repeated); PNTTC, 673. 28 Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 8. 29 Ibid.

text of the epistles sixty years after

101

the history of New Testament textual criticism. In particular, the genealogical approach has two great achievements to its credit. First, beginning with Bengel, it helped bring some degree of order out of the chaos of the almost paralysingly large number of extant New Testament MSS by allowing them to be sorted into groups (Bengel’s “families, tribes, and nations,” or Griesbach’s “recensions”), and thus (in Zuntz’s words), “the principle of authority, as opposed to mere numbers, was therewith established.”30 Second, in the hands of Hort and Westcott it proved to be a useful tool with which to overthrow the Textus Receptus. But having used it to overthrow the Textus Receptus, Hort and Westcott then abandoned it (a point made with particular force and clarity by Colwell31) and turned to internal evidence to decide between the “Alexandrian” and “Western” textual traditions. But having done so, they then found themselves, like Bentley and Lachmann before them, facing a gap separating the oldest evidence from the autograph. The oldest evidence took them up to the beginning of the fourth century, but no further; and, having cast aside as secondary the Byzantine tradition and rejected as corrupt the Western tradition (with, to be sure, some notable exceptions!), they lacked the resources to proceed further, other than by assertion (the “New Testament in the Original Greek,” as Westcott & Hort proclaimed in their title). As Zuntz summarizes, “Having followed the best line of the tradition back to its earliest known representative, textual criticism is uncertain about the use of the vast mass of the other evidence and hesitates to risk the step from the point obtained to the original.”32 It hesitated to risk the step, Zuntz contends, because it is precisely here that the guide that proved to be so spectacularly useful at earlier stages, namely recensio, was forced to reveal its critical shortcoming: its inability to deal with a mixed textual tradition.33 The transmission of the New Testament text is, as Zuntz reminds us, “essentially an historical phenomenon, and history is not rational.”34 The genealogical method, like grace in the words of the famous hymn, brought the discipline 30 Ibid., 5. 31 Colwell, “Genealogical Method” (= Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism, 63–83); see also Birdsall, “Recent History,” 140. 32 Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 11. 33 Ibid., 8. 34 Ibid., 10.

102

Holmes

“safe thus far”—but unlike grace, it has proven incapable of leading it home, because of the inherent limitations of a genealogical approach in dealing with a contaminated manuscript tradition,35 of which the New Testament offers a most outstanding example. And having lost its trusted guide, the discipline hesitated, in Zuntz’s opinion, unsure how to move forward into what seemed to be terra incognita: what he described as “the barrier of the second century; the age, so it seems, of unbounded liberties with the text,” into which the “recensions” which had been the “lodestars” of criticism “vanish in primeval darkness.”36 It is here, at “the barrier of the second century,” where the discipline, it seems, continues to hesitate, unsure how to move forward.37 Why the continuing hesitation, and why the continuing unease or dissatisfaction with a critical text that looks so much like that of Westcott & Hort? Permit me to attempt a tentative analysis. Westcott & Hort’s text rests on three critical elements: 1) the use of recensio to eliminate the Byzantine text, 2) the use of internal evidence to eliminate the Western text, and 3) a fully-developed view of the history of the text as the context for 1) and 2). Today, there is widespread discontent with all three of these elements. With regard to 1), we now recognize the logical flaw in their use of recensio: they created a stemma not of actual manuscripts but of reconstructed texts (Western, Syrian, Neutral/Alexandrian), which they treated (under the influence of their view of the history of the text) as though they represented a closed manuscript tradition.38 Thus we now recognize recensio’s limits, but have not yet found, it seems, a replacement for it. With regard to 2), the use of internal evidence, many today continue to perceive internal evidence as somehow more subjective and therefore less reliable than allegedly more objective methods such as 35 Regarding these limitations see Holmes, “Reasoned Eclecticism,” 347; idem, “The Case for Reasoned Eclecticism,” 84–87. 36 Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 11. 37 Cf. Jacobus H. Petzer, “The History of the New Testament—Its Reconstruction, Significance and Use in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History (eds. B. Aland and Joël Delobel; CBET 7; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 11–36, esp. 36. 38 Cf. Birdsall, “Recent History,” 145; also Colwell, “Genealogical Method.”

text of the epistles sixty years after

103

recensio, and thus are uneasy with a text, whether Westcott & Hort’s or ours, that seems to rest so heavily upon what are viewed by some as “subjective” judgments. As for 3), a fully-developed view of the history of the text, K. W. Clark is on point: “we know… that the traditional theory of the text is faulty but cannot yet see clearly to correct the fault.”39 Zuntz has something to say about each of these three elements. The third element, the matter of the history of the text, will come up for separate treatment below, so it may be tabled for the moment. As for 2), the matter of subjectivity, much could and has been said,40 but for now let us attend to Zuntz’s own discussion of the matter: textual criticism, he writes, cannot be carried out mechanically. At every stage the critic has to use his brains. Were it different, we could put the critical slide-rule into the hands of any fool and leave it to him to settle the problems of the New Testament text. However, I would here obviate the notion that this criticism is “subjective,” that is, arbitrary and incapable of objective verification, for the mere reason that it is not mechanical. There are, indeed, instances where the data are insufficient for a well-founded decision to be based on them. The number of such instances will be found to decrease surprisingly as soon as the critic takes the trouble— for trouble it is—to apply with energy the manifold tools which, enriched by the methods of modern philology, the tradition of his craft puts into his hand. Textual criticism is not a branch of science. Its criteria are necessarily different from those sought by the scientist: they are not, for that reason, less exacting nor less definite. The convergence of 39 Clark, “The Effect of Recent Textual Criticism,” 37–38 (= Gentile Bias, 75–76). 40 The claim that some methods are more “objective” than others—in particular, the view that decisions based on external data are somehow more “objective” (or at least less “subjective”) than those based on internal considerations—is largely illusory and misleading. With respect to both external and internal evidence, what counts as “data” or “evidence” is a theory-driven decision, and the choice of what data to follow is inescapably subjective. Cf. Lee Patterson, “The Logic of Textual Criticism and the Way of Genius,” in Textual Criticism and Literary Interpretation (ed. J. J. McGann; Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 55–91, esp. 56–60.

104

Holmes arguments drawn from the distribution of the evidence, the dependence of one reading upon the other, the known habits and typical faults of scribes, the characteristic proclivities of interpolators, the development of the language, the stylistic peculiarities of the writer, the context of the passage in question—these, and still other, factors combined can yield a certainty which is no whit inferior to that of the conclusions drawn from a Euclidean axiom.41

Textual criticism, in other words, is not a hard science but a historical discipline from which the human element can never be eliminated, and it is a distraction to think otherwise. As for 1), the limitations of recensio and the seeming lack of a replacement for it, it is here, in my estimation, that Zuntz makes one of his most brilliant and yet most overlooked (or perhaps merely ignored) contributions, as he adapts the classical method of recensio to the realities of a contaminated textual tradition. His key move is this: the recognition that in an “open” or contaminated tradition, characterized by cross-pollination between witnesses, one cannot eliminate any textual tradition or source from consideration in the effort to determine the archetype of the text of the New Testament and to understand the earliest stages of the transmission of the textual tradition. In a closed or uncontaminated tradition, such as one often finds in the classics, recensio is used to determine an unequivocal stemma codicum; once the archetype of the stemma has been determined, the rest of the witnesses may be eliminated from consideration. But in a contaminated or cross-pollinated tradition, the construction of a stemma is impossible. In such cases, recensio—which in this instance Zuntz defines as “the assessment of all available witnesses”—serves not to identify a single manuscript or line of tradition as closest to the archetype, but to identify, variant by variant, the oldest reading(s) at any given point in the tradition. These oldest readings are then subjected to examinatio, the assessment of “the quality of the most ancient reading or readings attained by recensio. The reading which satisfies all requirements is considered to be original” (and, he adds, “where the tradition fails to yield such a reading, emendatio strives to recover, by means of conjecture, the original wording”).42 In short, “in a vast and 41 Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 12–13. 42 Ibid., 12.

text of the epistles sixty years after

105

contaminated tradition, historical insight can, and must, take the place of the fixed abstractions at which the recensio of a less complex tradition arrives.” 43 One may observe that in terms of overall theory, Zuntz is in many respects quite similar to Hort, but that in the implementation of that theory there is a major difference. Whereas Hort rejected the Byzantine and—with a certain few well-known exceptions (the famous “Western non-interpolations”)—the Western textual traditions as possible carriers of original readings or even as clues to the early history of the text, Zuntz recognizes that all textual traditions, including the Byzantine (which is, in his terms, “by no means quantité négligeable”44), must be the subject of “recensio.” As Zuntz points out in this regard, The recovery of the original text, if it is to be attempted scientifically, depends upon the illumination of its history in the second century. The modern criticism, by its disregard for the Western evidence, robs itself of one of the means for elucidating this history. The widespread view that “the” Western text is “the” text of the second century indeed stands in need of rectification… yet it contains a large element of truth which we cannot afford to neglect. The rejection en bloc of the “Byzantine text” similarly tends to rob us of a most helpful instrument. This rejection is due to Griesbach, who… considered [as did Hort after him, one may add, with even greater influence] the late text to derive from the two earlier “recensions” combined. We shall show that this view is erroneous and thus gain another clue to the early history of the tradition.45

Regrettably what Zuntz wrote in 1946 with respect to the “disregard for the Western evidence” and the “rejection en bloc of the ‘Byzantine text’” remains very largely true. There are notable exceptions, including Kilpatrick and especially Birdsall.46 But if the UBS/ 43 Ibid., 10 (emphasis added). 44 Ibid., 283. 45 Ibid., 11–12. 46 Cf. Kilpatrick, Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism, chapters 3, 9, 10, and 11; Birdsall, “New Testament Text History,” 343–44: no one form of text has a monopoly of the original. Original readings may be discerned in the various witnesses to the so-called

106

Holmes

NA editorial committee, composed of several of our most senior and respected colleagues, is at all representative—as it surely must be—of mainstream textual criticism of recent decades, then Zuntz’s point holds: the Textual Commentary which records for us the Committee’s reasons and reasoning reveals, page after page, its dismissive opinion of the Western text and its near-total rejection of the Byzantine. Outside the mainstream there are, to be sure, a few other voices, both with respect to the Western text on the one hand (such as M.-É. Boismard and C.-B. Amphoux) and the Byzantine text on the other (e.g., Maurice Robinson), but these each in their own way are as one-sided in their emphases as the mainstream is in its continuing imbalanced allegiance to the Alexandrian textual tradition as represented by a few early papyri and old uncials. So if, therefore, as Zuntz asserts, “the recovery of the original text… depends upon the illumination of its history in the second century,” then (now paraphrasing him) we continue to rob ourselves of the needed instruments by the continued disregard of Western and Byzantine evidence. Zuntz’s fundamental methodological insights have been largely ignored, and we are the poorer for it. It is not merely his methodological insights that have been ignored, however: one may make the same observation regarding his observations about the history of the transmission of the New Testament text, that third area of interest I identified earlier, to which we may now turn.

Zuntz and New Testament Textual History A reasoned eclecticism—or any method, for that matter, one could argue—does not work in isolation; rather it works in conjunction with a view of the history of the transmission of the text.47 Zuntz has described the relationship between method and history as a fruitful circle: Every variant whose quality and origin has… been established must serve as a stone in the mosaic picture of the history of the tradition, for there is next to no other material from which it could be built up. At the same time Western text, while the Byzantine text… often reflects the putative original in both vocabulary and word-order. This indicates that all major text-forms have their roots in the second century. 47 On this point see further Holmes, “Reasoned Eclecticism,” 349–53.

text of the epistles sixty years after

107

the evaluation of individual readings depends to a large extent upon their place within this picture. This is another instance of that circle which is typical of the critical process; it is a fruitful and not a vicious circle.48

In short, the evaluation of individual readings is greatly influenced by the critic’s view of their relationship to the larger picture of the history of the text, because there is a synergistic relationship between history and method.49 Thus Zuntz’s contributions to understanding the history of the text are no less important than his insights with regard to methodology. We may once again begin with Griesbach and Westcott & Hort. Griesbach’s view of the history of the New Testament text was given classical expression by Westcott & Hort; it looks something like the following diagram:50 Diagram 1: History of New Testament Text (Westcott & Hort) The Original Text

(Corruption) The Western Text

(cod. B) The Eastern (“Neutral”) Text

The Byzantine (“Antiochian”) Text

If today this way of viewing the Western and Alexandrian traditions has been variously modified (but with no particular consensus resulting), nonetheless this way of viewing the Byzantine textual tradition—as a late secondary textual tradition with no independent access to the original—still largely dominates the field. One sees it clearly, for example, in the analysis and comments in the UBS Textual Commentary, which 48 Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 13. 49 See further Holmes, “Reasoned Eclecticism,” 349–53. 50 The diagram is from Zuntz, “The Text of the Epistles,” in idem, Opuscula selecta (Manchester: University Press, 1972), 253 (this article is a condensation of the main points of The Text of the Epistles).

108

Holmes

routinely give little more than merely cursory consideration to Byzantine variants, or in the Alands’ Introduction, which gives no real role to the Byzantine text in the search for the original text. As Zuntz himself notes, there is indeed a rough correlation between this way of picturing the tradition and what one observes in any critical apparatus, which reveals that where there is variation, the Eastern witnesses often support one alternative and the Western the other; that the Western reading is, on internal grounds, very often wrong; and that the late text either agrees with one of the two (sometimes, but very rarely, even conflating both) or, if it has a reading of its own, it is normally wrong.51

But while this is often so, it is not always so: the diagram sketched above requires, in Zuntz’s opinion, modification in at least three respects. 1) The sharply drawn lines of descent reflect too much the lingering influence of the classical concept of recensio and its goal of a stemma of manuscripts. In the above diagram, it is not a stemma of manuscripts, of course, but of textual traditions that is given—and that is precisely the problem, for no major textual tradition is so sharply defined as to be capable of being reduced to such a scheme. Thus, as Zuntz puts it, the concept of a clearly defined genealogical descent… must go. Every manuscript, of course has ancestors and, very often, also descendants; but we cannot identify them except in the case of a few small groups of late manuscripts. The tradition ought to be visualized, rather, as a broad stream, of which the extant manuscripts and other witnesses yield occasional, rare samples.52

This idea of the tradition as a broad stream, with the surviving evidence representing only small scattered subportions of it, is a fresh (and, in my opinion, quite fruitful) element of Zuntz’s historical reconstruction. 2) The term “Western” ought to be applied to variants attested only by Western witnesses. That is, a variant attested by Western witnesses and also, e.g., by Origen or Ephrem, ceases to be “Western” in a meaningful sense. 3) The second point is to be closely linked to the third: the Byzantine text did not originate from Western 51 Zuntz, “Text of the Epistles,” 253. 52 Ibid., 254.

text of the epistles sixty years after

109

elements being grafted upon an Eastern tradition; this view of Griesbach, adopted by all his successors except von Soden, is wrong (and von Soden is still more wrong). The Byzantine text is a late fixation of the Eastern tradition only. Its so-called Western elements are really primitive elements of the Eastern tradition. The Byzantine text contains some few original elements for which no, or almost no, ancient evidence survives.53

This last point is a particularly critical one, for it shapes in an absolutely fundamental way how one views (and thus evaluates) the manuscript tradition. The view of Westcott & Hort—that agreements between Neutral witnesses and Western witnesses represent Western intrusions into an otherwise pure tradition54 —is still very much alive and well, as is clear from the Textual Commentary published by the UBS/NA editorial team.55 As one reads through the volume, one finds P46—whose proto-Alexandrian character Zuntz indubitably established—occasionally characterized by the Committee: as a “Western” witness (see, e.g., the discussions of Rom 13:1 and 13:12);56 at Rom. 11:1, the Committee suggests that the reading supported by P46 “appears to be a Western assimilation”57 (cf. the discussion of Rom 3:7 and 4:19); at 14:21 a variant supported by P46vid B D F G 0209 33 Byz lat syh sa is described as “a Western expansion… which gained wide circulation;”58 at 1 Cor 3:3, the Committee suspects that a reading supported by P46 D F G 33 614 Byz a b sy Ir Cyp represents “the intrusion of a Western gloss;”59 at 2 Cor 2:17, the reading supported by P46 D G 326 614 Lect syp, h Marcion al “appears to be of Western origin.”60 53 Ibid. 54 Cf. Westcott & Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2, Introduction, 167, 228, 244, 258–59. 55 B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 56 Ibid., 467. 57 Ibid., 464. 58 Ibid., 469. 59 Ibid., 482–83. 60 Ibid., 508.

110

Holmes

The implication of comments of this sort is clear: “Western” readings are a corrupting outside intrusion into an otherwise pure “proto-Alexandrian” witness or textual tradition. Zuntz, on the other hand, answers unequivocally in the other direction. In his opinion, the “outstanding feature” of the group of witnesses he termed “proto-Alexandrian,” and in P46 most of all, is the presence of “Western” readings, or rather, those readings which have disappeared from the later “Alexandrian” manuscripts (and often also from other Eastern witnesses) but recur in the West. The presence of these readings does not make the group “Western” in any legitimate sense of the term; the “Alexandrian” character of the “proto-Alexandrian” witnesses is established by unequivocal facts. This element, common to the earliest Eastern and to the Western traditions, is a survival from a pre-“Alexandrian” and pre“Western” basis, the traces of which, most marked in P46, gradually disappear from the later “Alexandrian” tradition but often reappear in later Eastern witnesses, as well as in the West.61

From Zuntz’s perspective, the evidence he collected yielded “one paramount conclusion: Western readings in non-Western witnesses are, generally, ancient survivals. They are not, in the relevant witnesses, secondary intrusions into a previously pure form.”62 In other words, from the earliest stages of the New Testament textual tradition—Zuntz characterized it as a “reservoir”—there flowed the two major textual streams, the Western and the Eastern. The Western developed its own characteristic features, which do not appear in Eastern witnesses (but some Eastern features do appear in the Western tradition, due to the work of Jerome or whoever). The Eastern tradition flowed separately, and eventually received fixed form as the Byzantine imperial text. The Alexandrian tradition represents an early main channel of that stream, one that was able to avoid many (but not all) of the faults of the tradition which preceded it, but which also lost some good readings which other channels preserved and passed along to the Byzantine text. 61 Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 156–57. 62 Ibid., 142.

text of the epistles sixty years after

111

Two implications stand out on this view: 1) the Byzantine text, on occasion, may alone preserve original readings; and 2) any reading with both Western and Eastern support, though not necessarily nor often original, must nonetheless be very ancient, and thus may offer clues to the early history and transmission of the text. With regard to 1), Zuntz is by no means the only one to have pointed this out,63 and he has been echoed by others since.64 But he is one of only two I am aware of (the other being Birdsall65) to develop the implications of this insight sufficiently to support a robust hypothesis regarding the history of the transmission of the text, and then to allow that history to shape one’s judgment on readings. With regard to the second point (2), as long as readings with both western and eastern support are viewed as western intrusions into the eastern tradition, they are dismissed along with the rest of the western tradition. But if we view them as Zuntz does, then they become pointers to the handling and fate of the New Testament text in the earliest period of its transmission: even when secondary, they are nonetheless illuminating. In other words, the still-influential Hortian-influenced view of the history of the text has wrongly led us to toss out valuable clues to the first century of its transmission. What we find here in Zuntz is a serious, fully-developed alternative to Westcott & Hort’s view of the history of the text. Zuntz applied 63 E.g. cf. Westcott & Hort’s contemporary, F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (ed. E. Miller; 4th ed.; London, 1894), 2:274–301. 64 Such as A. W. Adams (in his revision of F. G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, [3d ed. rev. by A. W. Adams; London: Duckworth, 1975], 212– 13); Birdsall (see next note); G. D. Kilpatrick (“The Greek New Testament Text of Today and the Textus Receptus,” in The New Testament in Historical and Contemporary Perspective [eds. H. Anderson and W. Barclay; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965], 189–208 [=Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism, 33–52]); H. A. Sturz (The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism [Nashville: Nelson, 1984]), and (with less emphasis); Metzger (e.g., Text of the New Testament [1st ed.], 212 [4th ed., 306]); also M. A. Robinson, “The Case for Byzantine Priority,” in Rethinking New Textual Criticism, 125–39. 65 Birdsall, “The New Testament Text;” idem, “Recent History.” For an analysis of the efforts of Maurice A. Robinson along these lines, see Holmes, “The Case for Reasoned Eclecticism,” 87–88, 92–93.

112

Holmes

it only to the Pauline corpus, obviously, but in its main lineaments it is generally applicable to the rest of the New Testament as well. As such, it constitutes a third major contribution of The Text of the Epistles. We may perhaps appreciate more fully the significance of this if we revisit a point mentioned earlier, namely that text-critical method functions properly only in conjunction with a view of the history of the transmission of the text. Yet one may observe that whereas method has received a great deal of attention in the half-century since Zuntz, matters look rather different with regard to textual history. Indeed, in his famous 1968 article on “Hort Redivivus,” Colwell excoriated the discipline for its near-universal failure to deal with or take into account the history of the manuscript tradition.66 In the years since the situation is only somewhat better: one may point to Metzger’s nice but very brief sketch in the Textual Commentary,67 to the useful remarks by the Alands in their Introduction (which are hampered, however, by circular reasoning and inattention to early elements surviving in the generally later Byzantine tradition),68 to the highly idiosyncratic opinions of Amphoux as developed in his revision of Vaganay,69 or to Kilpatrick’s truncated sketch (whose main consequence is to eliminate the need to give attention to the history of the text).70 The one wide-ranging, fully developed and robust history of the text written since Zuntz that I am aware of is by Birdsall; but its placement in the first volume of the Cambridge History of the Bible has resulted, it seems, in a general lack of awareness of its existence.71 What Colwell wrote over three and a half decades ago remains essentially true: the discipline has largely neglected to give due attention 66 Colwell, “Hort Redivivus,” 132–35 (= Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism, 149–151); also in the same year Clark, “Today’s Problems,” 167–69. 67 Metzger, Textual Commentary (1st ed.), xv–xxi; (2d ed., 3*–7*); cf. now Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 276–80. 68 K. Aland and B. Aland, Text of the New Testament, 48–71. 69 Vaganay and Amphoux, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 89–128. 70 Kilpatrick, “The Transmission of the New Testament and its Reliability,” in Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism, 3–14. 71 Neither Zuntz’s nor Birdsall’s contributions are mentioned in the otherwise excellent article by Petzer (“The History of the New Testament Text”).

text of the epistles sixty years after

113

to writing the history of the text. But no method works without such a history of the text, so what has filled the void? The lingering influence of Westcott & Hort’s view of the history of the text, it would seem; Epp recently suggested that their text (and by implication the historical view associated with it) has become the unconscious “default setting” of the discipline.72 In such circumstances, the significance of Zuntz’s achievement is increasingly evident.73

Conclusion In the preceding assessment of Zuntz’s contributions to the textual criticism and history of the New Testament, I have suggested that at least three major contributions may be found in the Text of the Epistles: 1) a confirmation of the theoretical and pragmatic bases for the practice of reasoned eclecticism; 2) an adaptation of the classical method of recensio to the realities of a contaminated textual tradition; and 3) the formulation of a comprehensive and robust theory regarding the history of the transmission of the New Testament text, especially during the earliest period of its transmission. These insights into text-critical method and history have, in my estimation, often been noticed, but their implications have also often been ignored or overlooked. In view of the present uncertainty, unease, or even (to borrow Birdsall’s phrase) malaise74 evident in some quarters of the discipline, it may be time to rethink the significance and continuing relevance to our discipline of Zuntz’s significant achievements.

72 Epp, “Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism,” 49–50; PNTTC, 671–72. 73 For a concrete example of how the application of Zuntz’s view of the history of the transmission of the textual can be both fruitful and illuminating, see Holmes, “The Text of P46: Evidence of the Earliest ‘Commentary’ on Romans?,” in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Text and Their World (eds. Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas; Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 2; Leiden: Brill, 2006), forthcoming. 74 Birdsall, “Recent History,” 188.

Sind Schreiber früher neutestamentlicher Handschriften Interpreten des Textes? Barbara Aland, Münster

Aufgabe und Ziel Sind Schreiber neutestamentlicher Handschriften “Leser” des Textes? Selbstverständlich, möchte man meinen. Denn ob nun Schreiber ihren Text von einer Vorlage kopieren oder nach Diktat oder Selbstdiktat schreiben, immer muß doch ein Akt des Verstehens zwischen der Aufnahme des zu Schreibenden durch den Schreiber und der Niederschrift angenommen werden. Wovon dieses Verstehen beeinflusst ist, müsste untersucht werden. Auf der anderen Seite hat die Arbeit im Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung gezeigt (und jedermann kann es an einem guten kritischen Apparat überprüfen), dass insbesondere frühe Handschriften zwar von Schreibfehlern übersät sind, dass aber wirklich ernsthafte Fehler, die einen Gestaltungswillen des Schreibers erkennen lassen, relativ selten sind. Schreiber, so kann man daraus entnehmen, wollen kopieren und damit ihre handwerkliche Berufsaufgabe erfüllen. Nur in dem engen Rahmen, der damit gegeben ist, kann man folglich erwarten, Spuren von je eigener Aneignung des zu kopierenden Textes durch den Schreiber in seinem je besonderen Kontext zu finden. Wir versuchen im folgenden, an einzelnen Singulärlesarten

114

sind schreiber interpreten?

115

einzelner früher Handschriften zu eruieren,1 welche Funktion die Handschriften in ihren Kontexten ausüben, welche Kommunikation durch die Handschriften ermöglicht wird, die ohne ihre speziellen Veränderungen nicht ermöglicht wäre und welche Rezeptionsvorgaben der Text bereithält, aufgrund derer Veränderungen des Textes ermöglicht werden, die das Verstehen des Lesers fördern. Damit würden auch die Kompetenzen und das Vermögen des Lesers in den Blick kommen.2

Die Wirkung des Textes auf frühe Schreiber und Handschriften am Beispiel von P66 Eine für unsere Zwecke besonders ergiebige Art von Varianten sind Harmonisierungen, d.h. eigenmächtige Angleichungen des Textes an Parallelen des näheren oder weiteren Kontextes. So liest z.B. P66 in Joh 6:69 im Bekenntnis des Petrus “Du hast Worte des ewigen Lebens (6:68), und wir glauben und erkennen, dass du der Christus, der Heilige Gottes bist” statt “… dass du der Heilige Gottes bist.”3 P66 liest so mit koptischen Handschriften (sa mss ac2 bo), die Lesart ist also in Ägypten verbreitet. Royse4 bemerkt mit Recht, dass der Schreiber hier einen Bezug zu Joh 11:27 herstellen wollte. Auch an dieser Stelle wird der bedingungslose Glaube der Glaubenden an die Zusage Jesu, in diesem Falle der Martha, durch die Worte: “Ja, Herr, ich glaube, dass du der Christus, der Sohn Gottes bist…” ausgedrückt. Diese Parallele ist auffällig, weil sie nicht wie die andere (Matt 16:16 par) aus den unmittelbaren synoptischen Parallelen folgt, sondern auf ein überaus passendes innerjohanneisches Bekenntnis verweist. 1 Singulärlesarten früher Handschriften wählen wir deshalb, weil hier zumindest die Möglichkeit besteht, dass wir es mit selbständigen Bildungen der Handschriften (oder deren Vorgängern) zu tun haben und nicht auf Übernahmen einer Überlieferungskette stoßen. Selbst dann aber wären angesichts des frühen Alters der ausgewählten Handschriften die Singulärlesarten ihrer Entstehung ziemlich nahe. 2 S. dazu Wolfgang Iser, Der Akt des Lesens. Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung (4. Aufl.; München: Fink, 1994), iii. 3 Andere Varianten an derselben Stelle zeigen, dass der Text zu Harmonisierungen einlud. 4 James R. Royse, “Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri” (ThD diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1981), 379, 407 (forthcoming in SD; Eerdmans).

116

aland

Bei so theologisch gehaltvoller Harmonisierung scheint es mir nicht zu gewagt zu sein zu vermuten, dass der Schreiber hier einen bewussten referentiellen Bezug herstellt, sei es im Zuge seiner eigenen Aneignung des Textes, sei es, um die Leser seines Textes auf die Parallelen zu verweisen. Offenbar traut er ihnen auch durchaus zu, seine Hinweise zu verstehen. Der Text des Johannesevangeliums selbst hält hier also als Rezeptionsvorgabe den Hinweis auf die genannten parallelen Stellen, insbesondere das Bekenntnis der Martha (11:27), bereit. In Joh 11:27 wird der Glaube der Martha in P66 darüber hinaus dadurch betont, dass P66 ein zusätzliches “ich glaube” hinter “ja Herr” einfügt. Auf diese Weise steht das “ich glaube” zweimal hintereinander. Der doppelt betonte Glaube der Martha lässt daher Martha als eine derjenigen erscheinen, der es vom Vater gegeben ist, zu ihm zu kommen ( Joh 6:65). Durch die Singulärlesart in 11:27 (add. πιστεύω) und in 6:69 (add. ὁ χριστός) wird also in ihrem jeweiligen Kontext die Gemeinde derer qualifiziert, die zu Gott gehören, d.h. es wird Kommunikation zwischen den Glaubenden hergestellt und ermöglicht. Zusätzlich kann man aus dem näheren Kontext noch eine weitere Singulärlesart anführen, die die bisherige Interpretation unterstützt. In Joh 12:11 lässt P66 singulär das “sie gingen hin” (ὑπῆγον) aus. Damit wird ein überflüssiges Element, das nach v.9 keine sinntragende Funktion im Satz hat, ausgeschieden. Der Ton liegt ganz darauf, dass viele der Juden an Jesus glaubten. Nun darf man allerdings die Interpretation der Singulärlesarten in P66 und anderen frühen Handschriften nicht überziehen. Es bleibt dabei, dass Schreiber vornehmlich kopieren wollen, und gerade P66 mit seinen vielen Fehlern, die doch weitgehend verbessert wurden, ist ein Beweis dafür, dass Schreiber die Sorgfalt der Abschrift als ein hohes Ziel ihrer Arbeit ansahen.5 Nur in den damit gesteckten engen Grenzen kann man daher nach Spuren der Rezeption des Textes durch den Schreiber fragen. Wir nennen im folgenden noch einige Lesarten von P66, die als Aneignung durch den Schreiber gedeutet werden können und ziehen dann ein Fazit. Joh 10:16 ἀγαγεῖν] συναγαγεῖν P66; Clpt, Did 5 Vgl. Royse, “Scribal Habits,” 404.

sind schreiber interpreten?

117

Die Lesart kann halbbewußt entstanden sein, betont aber in sinnvoller Parallele zu 11:52, dass Jesus nicht nur für das Volk sterben werde, sondern auch, um die “verstreuten Kinder Gottes zusammenzuführen” (συναγάγῃ).6 Joh 17:14–18 Die Handschriften kommen mit den vielen Wiederholungen in diesem Textabschnitt nicht gut zurecht. Das betrifft auch P66 und zwar in interessanter Weise: Nachdem P66* den v.16 wie die große Menge der Handschriften richtig kopiert hat, omittiert P66c den gesamten Vers. Das könnte durch einen nachträglichen Augensprung von v.14 (Ende) bis v.16 (Ende) hervorgerufen sein,7 wobei dann allerdings der stehengebliebene Vers 15 schwer zu erklären wäre. Vielleicht muß man also von einer mechanischen Ursache der Omission absehen und nach der Möglichkeit einer inhaltlichen Neugestaltung durch den Schreiber suchen: Er könnte mit der Bitte von v.17 einen direkten Anschluß an v.15 gesucht haben. Damit ergibt sich von v.15 nach v.17 ein sinnvoller Text: Die Bitte, die Glaubenden vor dem Bösen zu bewahren (v.15), wird ergänzt durch das entsprechende “heilige sie in der Wahrheit” (v.17). Eine merkwürdige Variante findet sich in Joh 12:47: Joh 12:47 P66* liest mit vielen andern den sinnvollen Text “Wer meine Worte hört und sie nicht bewahrt, den werde ich nicht richten…” P66c streicht dagegen mit D Θ 070 579 1241 it vgmss das μὴ im Vordersatz aus, so dass sich ein geglätteter, aber unjohannenaher Zusammenhang ergibt. Um eine Erklärung für die Streichung zu finden, müsste man annehmen, dass der Nachsatz “den werde ich nicht richten,” dem Schreiber schon gegenwärtig war, so dass er dementsprechend den Vorsatz änderte: “Wer meine Worte hört und sie bewahrt, den werde ich nicht richten” (cf. 3:17). Wir hätten also eine Harmonisierung innerhalb des JohEv anzunehmen, die durchaus in den Rahmen der übrigen Harmonisierungen passt. Joh 11:4 Die Omission des zweiten τοῦ θεοῦ durch P66 geht wohl auf die 6 Vgl. 10:11–13. Die Zusammengehörigkeit der zu Jesus gehörenden Herde wird hier betont. 7 Oder auch, wie Royse, “Scribal Habits,” 412, vermutet, durch Homoioteleuton von v.15 (πονηροῦ) bis v.16 (κόσμου).

118

aland

unschöne Doppelung des Attributs im Satz zurück. Interessant ist, dass andere Handschriften—ebenfalls singulär oder mit wenigen Mitzeugen—an dieser Stelle auch Anstoß genommen haben und sich der Schwierigkeit auf verschiedene Weise entziehen: τοῦ θεοῦ2] αὐτοῦ P45 τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 0250 om P66 In allen drei Fällen müssen die Schreiber den gleichen Anstoß genommen haben und heilen den Fehler je auf ihre Weise selbständig und individuell. Joh 11:54 P66 läßt das zweite εἰς und das folgende πόλιν aus. P66c ergänzt πόλιν über der Linie. Es ist möglich, dass der ursprüngliche Schreiber den Namen “Ephraim” nicht zuordnen konnte und darunter keine πόλις, sondern ein “Land” verstand, obwohl eine andere Erklärung der Variante als Homoioteleuton auch denkbar ist.

Ergebnis Wir sehen: Zwar lassen sich noch die eine oder andere Variante dieser Art in P66 aufzeigen, im ganzen aber handelt es sich doch um recht wenig Material, so dass es geboten ist, vorsichtig zu sein und als erste Absicht des Schreibers weiterhin anzunehmen, dass er lediglich kopieren will, wobei es ihm dann gelegentlich unterläuft, dass der Text so auf ihn wirkt, wie es seinen Interessen und seinem Verständnis entspricht. Es wäre gut, wenn wir das soziokulturelle Umfeld, in dem die frühen Handschriften entstanden sind, genauer kennenlernen könnten. Aber das ist wohl nur für einen Ort, Oxyrhynchos, möglich, für den Eldon J. Epp das gesamte reichliche Material aufgearbeitet8 und festgestellt hat, was man über die frühe Zeit der Christen dort sagen kann und was nicht. Trotz der so begründeten Umstände der Funde in Oxyrhynchos bleibt unser Bild vom täglichen Leben der Christen dort eher verschwommen. Möglicherweise bieten die neutestamentlichen Handschriften sogar eine genauere Skizze von dem Interesse und der 8 Eldon J. Epp, “The Oxyrhynchus New Testament Papyri: ‘Not without honor except in their hometown?’” JBL (2004), 5–55; Neudruck im PNTTC, 743–801.

sind schreiber interpreten?

119

Fassenskraft der Leser im Fayyum und im östlichen Nilgebiet. Aber das muß offen bleiben, da Fundort und Entstehungsort der Handschrift nicht identisch sein müssen. Dass andere frühe Handschriften das gleiche Ziel einer zuverlässigen Kopie verfolgen wie P66 es aber in ganz anderer Weise zu erreichen suchen, zeigt P45. Die Kopiermethode in P45 ist intelligent und großzügig: intelligent, weil der Schreiber den Sinn des zu Kopierenden schnell erfasst und trotz aller Omissionen, Transpositionen und Harmonisierungen im wesentlichen genau wiedergeben will, und großzügig, weil überflüssige Worte und umständliche Wendungen des Textes vereinfacht oder fallengelassen werden.9 Dieses Letztere könnte auf den bewussten Wunsch des Schreibers zurückgeführt werden, der Gemeinde, die ihn beauftragt hat, eine zuverlässige, aber auch verständliche, lesbare Kopie zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Die Wirkung des Textes auf frühe Schreiber und Handschriften am Beispiel von P46 Ganz anders verhält es sich mit P46, der anderen frühen Handschrift, die wie P66 in die Zeit um 200 datiert werden kann. Dieser früheste Pauluscodex, den wir besitzen, ist mit Versehen, Irrtümern, Sorglosigkeiten übersät, aber—und das ist zunächst das Entscheidende—der Text, der der Handschrift zugrunde liegt, ist gut. Das haben verschiedene Untersuchungen festgestellt;10 auch ein Blick in den Apparat einer modernen kritischen Ausgabe bestätigt es. Es ist also möglich, P46 trotz seiner vielen Fehler als guten Zeugen bei der Suche nach dem zu konstituierenden Text einzusetzen.11 Jedoch ist bisher die Handschrift immer nur in bezug auf den Urtext befragt worden. Es sind also insbesondere bei den Singulärlesarten “Fehler” und Versehen festgestellt worden, es 9 S. dazu ausführlich B. Aland, “The significance of the Chester Beatty Papyri in Early Church History,” in The Earliest Gospels. The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels. The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P45 (ed. Charles Horton; JSNTSup 258; London; New York: T & T Clark, 2004), 108–121. 10 Günther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (Schweich Lectures, 1946; London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1953). 11 Im Unterschied zu P72, bei dem das wegen der erheblichen überlegten Eigenmächtigkeiten der Handschrift viel weniger möglich ist.

120

aland

ist nicht danach gefragt worden, ob der Schreiber in eigener Rezeption des Textes diesen in selbständiger Weise gestalten will, ob seine Kopie etwas über die Funktion des Textes verrät, ob er durch seine Abschrift Erfahrung vermitteln will, und ob er die Rezeptionsvorgaben des abzuschreibenden Textes aufnimmt und über sie den Text vermitteln und den Lesern ermöglichen will, mit dem Text zu kommunizieren. Schon gleich eingangs sei es gesagt, dass die Singulärlesarten von P46, um die es hier allein geht, wenig für unsere Fragerichtung ergeben. Das bestätigt die Annahme, dass Handschriften in erster Linie kopieren wollen und zur Vermittlung “ihres” Textes an den Leser weiter nichts beitragen, es sei denn eben die Kopie des Textes. Einiges aber sei genannt. Wie die hilfreiche Dokumentation und Untersuchung sämtlicher Singulärlesarten von Royse gezeigt hat,12 fallen insbesondere meist kurze Omissionen in P46 auf. Dabei handelt es sich meistens um sinnlose Versehen oder durch mechanische Ursachen hervorgerufene Fehler (Heb 8:5 om ποιήσεις; Rom 8:17 om κληρονόμοι primum; Heb 8:12 om ὅτι ἵλεως… αὐτῶν; Heb 6:1 τελειότητα] θεμελειότητα), es gibt aber auch Omissionen, die möglicherweise eine besondere Absicht des Schreibers verraten: 1 Kor 11:22 P46 om ὑμᾶς. Das könnte um der Fortsetzung des Satzes willen verkürzt worden sein. “Was soll ich euch sagen? Soll ich [das] loben? Darin lobe ich nicht.” 1 Kor 12:9 P46 om ἑνί. Hier bestätigt die Variante αὐτῷ, die von vielen bezeugt wird, dass offenbar eine Schwierigkeit in dem Satzteil gesehen wird. P46 löst sie durch die Omission, so dass von den Heilungsgaben die Rede ist, die im Geist gegeben wird. Will der Schreiber einen möglichen Anstoß beseitigen, weil nicht, wie in allen vorangehenden Beispielen auf denselben “Geist” verwiesen wird?13 Rom 8:23 P46 om καὶ αὐτοί. Dass der Satz nicht leicht zu verstehen war, zeigen 12 S. oben Anm. 4. 13 Vgl. aber 1 Kor 12:7. Dadurch wird der Abschnitt zusammengehalten, unabhängig von dem immer wiederholten Betonung, dass es sich um den selben Geist handelt.

sind schreiber interpreten?

121

die vielen Verbesserungen in der Überlieferung. Offenbar war der Bezug der Pronomina nicht zweifelsfrei deutlich. “Nicht aber nur [sie], sondern, indem wir die Erstlingsgabe des Geistes haben, seufzen auch wir in uns selbst…” Der Satz wird auf diese Weise geringfügig schlanker, obwohl auch eine mechanische Ursache (das doppelte αὐτοί) Anlaß zu der Auslassung gegeben haben könnte. Heb 2:8 P46 om αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. “Alles hast du unter seine Füße getan. Wenn Er es unter die Füße getan hat, so hat er nichts ausgenommen, was ihm nicht untertan wäre.” Der Satz wird durch die Omission schlanker: Im Unterwerfen hat er nichts ausgenommen. Gegen diese wenigen Beispiele, die sich um weniges vermehren ließen,14 steht eine Fülle von Fehlern, die zeigen, dass der Schreiber zwar eine sorgfältige Kopie herstellen wollte, aber seinem Text weder in der Orthographie gewachsen war, noch, was schwerwiegender ist, den Sinn dessen, was er kopierte, angemessen erfassen konnte.15 Ganz im Unterschied zum Kopisten von P45, der den Text seiner Vorlage rasch und eigenständig erfasste, ist dieser Schreiber offensichtlich mehr auf die kalligraphische Schönheit seiner Abschrift konzentriert—sie ist beträchtlich—als auf die Präzision des Geschriebenen. Was die Kalligraphie anlangt, so überragt P46 alle anderen frühen Codices aus dem Fayyum. Einen Hinweis auf den soziokulturellen Umkreis, aus dem die Handschrift stammt, wird man daraus aber leider nicht entnehmen können.

Zusammenfassung Was bleibt? Wir fassen zusammen. Wir haben eine Reihe von frühen Papyri kennengelernt, die alle dieselbe, früher alexandrinisch genannte Textform wiedergeben wollten, dabei aber Fehler in unterschiedlichem Maße machen. Diese “Fehler” können teilweise als bewusste Aneignung des Textes der Vorlage durch den Schreiber gedeutet werden, d.h. es handelt sich um eine Rezeption, die teilweise dem eigenen Verständnis, mehr aber noch der Vermittlung des Textes an die Hörer und Leser des Textes gilt. Bei P72 ist dieses Bestreben ganz deutlich.16 14 Vgl. auch Heb 4:6 Omission um der Betonung willen (?). 15 So richtig Royse, “Scribal Habits,” 282–83. 16 S. zu dieser hier nicht behandelten Handschrift meinen im Druck befindlichen Aufsatz, “Welche Rolle spielen Textkritik und Textgeschichte für

122

aland

Hier arbeitet ein Schreiber, der den christologischen Bezug des Textes verdeutlichen und seinen Adressaten vermitteln will. P66 enthält immerhin einige Stellen, an denen deutlich wird, wie der Schreiber den Text liest: Dass der Glaube der einzige Weg ist, der zu Jesus führt, wird deutlich mehrfach unterstrichen, so weit das möglich ist. Auch die sonst angestrebte Präzision der Kopie, die durch Korrekturen erreicht wird, muss davor zurücktreten. P75 ist ein so genauer Kopist, dass umgekehrt um der angestrebten Präzision willen Spuren der Rezeption in den Hintergrund treten. P45 ist ein intelligenter Schreiber, bei dem nicht so sehr die Präzision als vielmehr das Bestreben, einen verständlichen Text zu bieten vorherrscht. Die Genauigkeit der Abschrift wird diesem Ziel an schwierigen Stellen geopfert. P46 schließlich will einen schön geschriebenen Text bieten. Auch um dieses Zieles willen und nicht nur aus Flüchtigkeit und mangelnder Fähigkeit, die Vorlage zu verstehen, nimmt der Schreiber Fehler in Kauf, möglicherweise im Vertrauen darauf, dass der Lektor weiß, was er zu lesen hat. Will man Schreiber und ihre Handschriften als Interpreten des Textes einsetzen, so ist das möglich. Allerdings muss man vorher wissen, dass es das Hauptziel aller Schreiber bleibt, ihre Vorlage zuverlässig wiederzugeben (wäre es nicht so, wir könnten den Text nicht rekonstruieren) und wir müssen den Charakter einer Handschrift studiert haben, um nicht zufällige Fehler als bewusste Interpretationen fehl zu deuten. Dann aber zeigen sich Spuren einer Rezeption, von der wir annehmen können, dass sie auf bewusster Aneignung des Textes durch den Schreiber und sein Bestreben, den Text an seine Adressaten zu vermitteln, zurückgehen. Nicht der “Fehler” in bezug auf den sog. Urtext steht dann im Vordergrund der Betrachtung, sondern in umgekehrter Fragerichtung die Rezeption des Textes und seine Vermittlung an die Gemeinde. Damit stehen auch Handschriften in der Linie jenes Arbeitsgebietes, dem Carroll Osburn so viel Kraft gewidmet hat, den Zitaten der Kirchenschriftsteller. Bei diesen kann man gewiss noch mehr an individueller Aneignung entdecken als bei den Handschriften. Und das ist gut so. Es lohnt sich aber, auch sie als kirchenhistorische Zeugen auf ihr Verständnis des Textes zu befragen.

das Verständnis des Neuen Testaments? Frühe Leserperspektiven,” NTS 52 (2006), bevorstehend.

Minor Textual Variants in Romans 16:7 Eldon Jay Epp, Lexington, Massachusetts

Introduction: Textual Variants and Non-Variants Scholars who have used the Nestle editions of the Greek New Testament from 1930 to 1952 and the Nestle-Aland editions from 1956 through the fourth printing of 1996 are accustomed to several1 textual variants in the critical apparatus of Rom 16:7, including two readings as alternatives to the ᾿Ιουνιᾶν (“Junias,” masculine) that stands in the text. One variant is ᾿Ιουνίαν (“Junia,” feminine) and the other ᾿Ιουλίαν (“Julia”). It has become clear in recent decades, however, that only “Julia” is a genuine textual variant to the (unaccented) ᾿Ιουνιαν; that the masculine form, “Junias,” is a non-existent name and must be discarded; and that the feminine form, “Junia,” must be restored in the text. At least some four other readings in the verse are valid variants, though what sense is conveyed by one or two of them is not clear. This short essay has two purposes. First, since the non-variant, 1 The current 27th edition (1998–2001 printings) of Nestle-Aland has five variant readings, as did the 26th (1979) and earlier editions, back to at least the Nestle 21st (1952); but the 27th Nestle-Aland (1993) has six, while the Nestle 16th edition (1936) has four. As for others, Merk (199211) has five; Kilpatrick (19582) four; Bover (19685) one; Souter (19472) none. Farther back, von Soden (1913) has seven; Tischendorf (1869–728) eleven; Wettstein (1751-52) four; Mill (Kuster) (1710) nine, but the 2d ed. (1723) has seven. (Counts may vary due to the definition of a variant.)

123

124

Epp

“Junias,” has had a long-standing and significant influence in exegesis and on translations into modern languages, it will be appropriate to review its recent demise. This has been treated in detail in my recent small volume, Junia: The First Woman Apostle.2 Second, the genuine textual variants in Rom 16:7 will be examined to discover what they might add to the narrative of Andronicus and Junia. Here is the passage with its variants, though retaining the unaccented form of the disputed Junia/Junias, and leaving that term untranslated in the English text. In Romans 16:7, Paul3 asks the recipients of his letter to: ἀσπάσασθε ᾿Ανδρόνικον καὶ ¢᾿Ιουνιαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ £ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ’, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγονανÀ ἐν Χριστῷ ‹. ¢᾿Ιουλίαν P46 6 606 1718 2685 ar b vgmss copbo eth Ambrosiaster Jerome | £ τοὺς P46 B | ’ τοῖς πρὸ ἐμοῦ Dp Fp Gp it vgmss Ambrosiaster / ὃς καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγονεν P46 | ‹᾿Ιησοῦ Dp Fp Gp vgmss Ambrosiaster Jerome Greet Andronicus and ᾿Ιουνιαν [literally, Iounian or Junian], my compatriots and my fellow prisoners, who are prominent among the apostles, who were in Christ even before me.

Junia/Junias: A Non-Variant in Romans 16:7 Greek New Testaments from Erasmus (1516) up to Erwin Nestle’s thirteenth edition (1927) read “Andronicus and Junia,… outstanding 2 Eldon Jay Epp, Junia–The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2005)—an updated and revised version of the following publication, with extensive revisions in the last section (Chapter 11 in the book): idem, “Text-Critical, Exegetical, and Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting the Junia/ Junias Variation in Romans 16,7,” in Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel (BETL 161; ed. Adelbert Denaux; Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 2002), 227–91. All references are to the former. 3 Contrary to earlier views, a consensus exists currently that Romans 16 was part of Paul’s letter to the Romans and not a later addition: see, e.g., Karl K. Paul Donfried, “A Short Note on Romans 16,” in The Romans Debate (rev. and exp. ed.; ed. K. P. Donfried; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 44–52; Harry Y. Gamble, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism (SD 42; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 36–95, esp. 84–95.

Minor Variants in Romans 16:7

125

among the apostles,” with perhaps only one exception,4 but the thirteenth edition of Nestle represents a turning point from “Junia,” a woman, to the [non-existent] man, “Junias.” After that and virtually without exception Greek Testaments persisted in “Junias” until, unannounced and largely unnoticed, suddenly “Junia” appeared once again in the text of the 1998 Jubilee edition (and later printings) of NA27 and in UBS4 (third printing and later). This change was long overdue and fully justified, for the Apostle Junias (male) was the creation of certain male scholars—exegetes, lexicographers, and grammarians—and churchmen in Europe, Britain, and North America, who, as is apparent (and occasionally on their own admission), found it difficult to admit that a woman in earliest Christianity could have been an apostle, much less one who was prominent among the others. Naturally, there is much more to the story than this. How, exactly, did the view of a male “Junias” develop? For the first twelve centuries of Christianity there was unanimity in patristic sources (and long after in most Christian writings that broached the subject) that Junia, a woman, was the companion of Andronicus—thought of often as a married couple. The view that “Junia” had to be changed to a male name reaches back to the thirteenth century, when Aegidius (or Giles) of Rome (ca. 1243/47–1316) read the name as masculine, but apparently it was Joseph Barber Lightfoot who, in an 1871 volume prepared in support of the English Revised Version (1881), popularized a view that spread rapidly and persisted for more than a century in basic New Testament reference works: … [I]t seems probable that we should render the name ᾿Ιουνιαν, one of S. Paul’s kinsfolk, who was “noted among the apostles” (Rom. xvi.7) by Junias (i.e. Junianus), not Junia.5

This was more an assertion than a scholarly conclusion by one of the great nineteenth-century scholars, but when the highly esteemed Revised Version appeared, “Junias” not only had been born but instantly 4 Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament, with a Critically Revised Text, a Digest of Various Readings: Marginal References to Verbal and Idiomatic Usage: Prolegomena: and a Critical and Exegetical Commentary (7th ed.; London: Rivingtons, 1857), 2:467. 5 Joseph Barber Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament (London: Macmillan, 18711, 18913), 179.

126

Epp

became an “outstanding apostle.” Soon the standard lexica and grammars of New Testament Greek carried entries similar to Lightfoot’s, with comparable suppositions, which then were carried down from generation to generation of scholars, and broadly into New Testament translations and commentaries. It is apparent that Bernadette Brooten, in a brief article in 1977,6 brought Junia to renewed attention, and that those who have joined her venture in the succeeding thirty years have succeeded in restoring Junia to her rightful place as the first woman called an apostle in our canonical New Testament literature. And this is as it should be after an eclipse of Junia for nearly eighty years in Greek New Testaments and for a century and more in a majority of English translations.7 “Junias,” then, actually is not a textual variant to “Junia” in Rom 16:7, for “Junias” occurs in no Greek manuscript (nor anywhere else8) in an unambiguously masculine form, but only as a hypothetical masculine accusative form that happens to be identical to the feminine accusative form—and the latter is far more natural in the context.9 To be more specific, ᾿Ιουνιαν (literally, Iounian) is the term that occurs in v. 7, and it is in the accusative case, most naturally from ᾿Ιουνία (-ας, ἡ), the feminine “Junia.” The accented accusative form would be ᾿Ιουνίαν. The hypothetical masculine name would be ᾿Ιουνιᾶς (-ᾶ, ὁ), “Junias,” or (even less plausibly10) ᾿Ιουνίας (-α, ὁ), “Junias,” both nouns of the first 6 Bernadette J. Brooten, “‘Junia… Outstanding among the Apostles’ (Romans 16:7),” in Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration (eds. Leonard S. and Arlene Swidler; New York: Paulist Press, 1977), 141–44; German trans.: “‘Junia… Hervorragend unter den Aposteln’ (Röm 16,7),” in Frauenbefreiung: Biblische und theologische Argumente, (ed. Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel; Munich/Mainz, Chr. Kaiser, 1978; 19823), 148–51. 7 For charts of the occurrences of “Junia” and “Junias” in Greek and English New Testaments from their beginnings to the present, see my Junia, 62–63, 66. 8 See ibid., 40–44, et passim. 9 Ibid., 23–24, 56–57; et passim. 10 This proposed alternate masculine form (᾿Ιουνίας, -α, ὁ) has disappeared from the discussion in recent decades, since there is no evidence for such a male name: see ibid., 30–31, 39. Hence, the masculine name ᾿Ιουνιᾶς, -ᾶ, ὁ, which would have to be a contracted name, is the only possible male alternative to Junia, but there is to date no evidence for it either (see ibid., 40–48 on “The Contracted-Name Theory”).

Minor Variants in Romans 16:7

127

declension. The accusative singular of ᾿Ιουνιᾶς would be ᾿Ιουνιᾶν, and of ᾿Ιουνίας it would be ᾿Ιουνίαν. Hence, in the virtually always unaccented Greek manuscripts prior to the seventh century, an accusative singular form of any one of these real or alleged names would appear as ᾿Ιουνιαν.11 As noted above, however, there exists no manuscript or other evidence for an unambiguously masculine form of ᾿Ιουνιαν. Rather, the latter is based on and justified by the hypothesis that a masculine name, “Junias,” was a contracted form of the common name, Junianus—as Lightfoot proposed. Yet, the presumably shortened name “Junias” has not been found anywhere to date, rendering the hypothesis highly doubtful—especially since Junias was alleged to represent a common longer name.12 When all the evidence has been assessed, it is clear that ᾿Ιουνιαν in Rom 16:7 refers to a woman, Junia, and not to a man named Junias. Not only does Chrysostom (ca. 344/354–407) understand Junia to be a woman, but explicitly extols her virtues as an apostle.13 Moreover, in the New Testament manuscript tradition, the reading ᾿Ιουνιαν is found in all Greek manuscripts containing Rom 16:7 (except for five that read ᾿Ιουλίαν, “Julia”–see below), including ē A B* C Dp* Fp Gp Lap Papr Ψ 049 056 0142 0150 0151, and five hundred and seventy-one (!) minuscules (plus four that have slightly misspelled the name: 337, 618, 1738, and 1267).14 Among these many minuscules are the textually 11 See the full discussion, ibid., 23–31; et passim. 12 See ibid., 41–44. According to Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (trans. Michael Steinhauser; ed. Marshall D. Johnson; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2003), 169, the name “Junianus” occurs twenty-one times in Rome. 13 Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 31.2 (PG 60.669–70): “Greet Andronicus and Junia… who are outstanding among the apostles. Just to be an apostle is great, but also to be prominent among them—consider how wonderful a song of honour that is. For they were prominent because of their works, because of their successes. Glory be! How great the wisdom of this woman that she was even deemed worthy of the apostle’s title. 14 For the list of minuscules, see Kurt Aland, ed., Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, II. Die paulinischen Briefe, Band 1: Allgemeines, Römerbrief und Ergänzungsliste (ANTF 16; Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1991), 433–34. Note that the original hands of B (03, Codex Vaticanus, mid-4th cent.) and of Dp (06, Codex Claromontanus, 6th cent.), as designated by B* and Dp*,

128

Epp

more noteworthy manuscripts 33 (9th cent.), 1739 (10th cent.), and 1881 (14th cent.). Generally, as noted, manuscripts prior to the seventh century do not contain accents, and presently it is not known how all of these numerous minuscules, regardless of date, have accented ᾿Ιουνιαν.15 A fair assumption, based on sampling, is that all the accented manuscripts have ᾿Ιουνίαν, the feminine accentuation. This probability is based on the examination, by Peter Arzt in 1993, of the nearly seventy “most important minuscules” (those in the Alands’ categories I, II, and III16) at the Münster Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung, and he found that every one reads the undoubtedly feminine ᾿Ιουνίαν17 (except for four that read ᾿Ιουλίαν—also a woman). That ᾿Ιουνίαν in the minuscules represents the female name “Junia” is clear enough, then, from the following facts: 1) The type of text respectively, have no accents (as expected), but that later correctors added an accent, namely, ᾿Ιουνίαν. In the case of B, the corrector probably dates around 1000: see Peter Arzt, “Iunia oder Iunias? Zum textkritischen Hintergrund von Röm 16,7,” in Liebe zum Wort: Beiträge zur klassischen und biblischen Philologie, P. Ludger Bernhard OSB zum 80. Geburtstag dargebracht von Kollegen und Schülern (eds. F. V. Reiterer and P. Eder; Salzburg: Otto Müller, 1993), 89. 15 Unfortunately, the accentuation is not specified in Aland, Text und Textwert, 433–34. 16 These categories were developed in the Münster Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung and are described in Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 159–63, 317–37; cf. 64, 93–95. For the view that these categories are based on a circular argument, see the following independent studies published in 1989: Bart D. Ehrman, “A Problem of Textual Circularity: The Alands on the Classification of New Testament Manuscripts,” Bib 70 (1989), 381, n. 19; 383–84; and Epp, “New Testament Textual Criticism Past, Present, and Future: Reflections on the Alands’ Text of the New Testament,” HTR 82 (1989), 224–26; reprinted and updated in PNTTC, 299–302, 429; and idem, “Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism: Moving from the Nineteenth Century to the Twenty-First Century,” in Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. David A. Black; Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2002), 39–41; reprinted and updated in PNTTC, 662–63. 17 All of the 575 minuscule manuscripts that read ᾿Ιουνιαν in Rom 16:7 need to be examined for accents, and Arzt’s survey of sixty is an important first step; see his detailed report, “Iunia oder Iunias?,” 89–94.

Minor Variants in Romans 16:7

129

represented by the vast majority of the minuscules is the textus receptus (the “text received by all”), which was the text in the first printed Greek New Testament (Erasmus, 1516) but acquired its name from the introduction to Elzevir’s edition of 1633; this text, which had existed since the fifth century and became the dominant, ecclesiastical text, formed the basis for Martin Luther’s German translation (1522),18 for the English King James Version (KJV, 1611), and for most other translations until the late nineteenth century. 2) All the minuscules and all other Greek manuscripts extant for Rom 16:7 contain ᾿Ιουνιαν (except for those with “Julia”). 3) Moreover, so far as they have been examined, all accented Greek manuscripts of the New Testament (some as late as the eighteenth century) read ᾿Ιουνίαν, “Junia.” 4) All Greek New Testaments until the early twentieth century (with the exception of Alford’s) print ᾿Ιουνίαν (with no indication of an alternative reading, except for Weymouth, 1886); and 5) the KJV translates ᾿Ιουνίαν as “Junia,” as do all other English translations from Tyndale (1525) until the second quarter of the nineteenth century,19 and numerous translations into other languages do the same. Two further points are significant: 6) All patristic sources to the late thirteenth century, and most beyond that period, refer to a woman named Junia. Finally, 7) as John Thorley concluded from a study of Junia in the Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, and Syriac versions, “there is a strong probability, though not quite a certainty, that the earliest translators took ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ to be a feminine name.”20 Subsequently, Peter Arzt found that the Syriac and Coptic versions and all Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts refer to a woman, with only one exception.21 These data permit a conclusion 18 Luther used Erasmus’s second edition (1519); see Stanley Lawrence Greenslade, ed., The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 3: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day (Cambridge: University Press, 1963), 99; also Epp, Junia, 96, n. 23. 19 Though the Rheims version (1582) had “Julia.” See the chart in Epp, Junia, 66, and the discussion below. 20 John Thorley, “Junia, A Woman Apostle,” NovT 38 (1996), 23; cf. 19– 23. He explained his caution by saying that, while all of these early translations “without exception transcribe the name in what can be taken as a feminine form,” none gives a positive sign for a masculine name even though the -A ending also can be used in all these languages “for some masculine names” (20). 21 Arzt, “Iunia oder Iunias?” 94–95. The exception was Vulgate R 3 (Codex Reginensis, 8th cent.), which reads Iulius.

130

Epp

beyond reasonable doubt about how both the unaccented ᾿Ιουνιαν and the accented ᾿Ιουνίαν were understood from early Christianity until modern times: they signified a woman—indeed a woman apostle— named Junia. An exception—and an influential one—was Luther’s German translation of the New Testament (1522), which introduced (or reintroduced) the male “Junias,” undoubtedly with significant influence on later German New Testament scholarship,22 and subsequently on other European and on British and North American exegesis of Romans.

Variant Readings in Romans 16:723 Five genuine variants deserve treatment. The few additional ones, not found in the Nestle-Aland editions, are orthographical in nature. By all counts, the major variant is “Julia” for “Junia.” “Julia,” a Variant for “Junia” Paul’s request to “Greet Andronicus and Junia” at the outset of Rom 16:7 contains the first textual variant, namely, ᾿Ιουλίαν (“Julia”) for ᾿Ιουνίαν (“Junia”); hence, “Greet Andronicus and Julia.” ᾿Ιουλίαν is supported by P46 (ca. 200);24 minuscules 6 (13th cent.), 606 (11th cent.), 1718 (12th cent.), and 2685 (15th cent.); Old Latin ar (9th cent.) and b (8th/9th cent.); some Vulgate manuscripts; the Bohairic Coptic and Ethiopic versions; and by Jerome and Ambrosiaster.25 As noted earlier, 22 Details in Epp, Junia, 38. 23 These variants were not treated in my earlier publications (see note 2, above), and I was alerted to their possible significance by Ray R. Schulz, “Romans 16:7: Junia or Junias?” ExpTim 98 (1986/87), 135. 24 Henry A. Sanders, ed., A Third-Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul (University of Michigan Studies: Humanistic Series, 38; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1935), 55, misread ΙΟΥΛΙΑΝ as ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ, though this was quickly corrected the following year by Frederick George Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible: Fasciculus III Supplement: Pauline Epistles, Text (London: Emery Walker, 1936), 19; see the plate in idem,…, Plates (London: Emery Walker, 1937), f. 20. r. 25 Though not in Nestle-Aland or UBS, Ambrosiaster is cited as supporting “Julia” here by John Wordsworth and Henry Julian White, Nouum

Minor Variants in Romans 16:7

131

the dominant reading, ᾿Ιουνιαν (“Junia”), is found in all other Greek manuscripts containing Rom 16:7, including ē A B* C Dp*, etc. (see above). This “Julia” variant in Rom 16:7 has attracted more than the usual attention due to its support by P46—the oldest extensive extant manuscript containing Romans—and because “Julia” appears as an alternative to “Junia” in references to Andronicus and his companion in patristic sources (as in Ambrosiaster, ca. 375); in the Vulgate (e.g., at the time of Erasmus, 1466–1536, though he preferred the Greek reading, “Junia”26); and in early English translations (Rheims, 1582). It is likely that “Julia” in P46 and later manuscripts arose from the “Julia” of Rom 16:15:27 “Greet Philologus and Julia”28—a different Julia, that is, a different woman from the one in v. 7. Yet there is another possibility: Peter Lampe has shown that, of the twenty-four names of Christians in Rom 16:7, “Julia” was by far the most popular name in Rome,29 and, for that reason alone, a scribe mistakenly might have written “Julia” for “Junia.” There is no way to know. Complexity increases, however, when it is observed that the ᾿Ιουλίαν (“Julia”) of Rom 16:15 has its own variant reading, namely ᾿Ιουνίαν (“Junia”)!—supported by C* Fp Gp and Ambrosiaster, with the result that Ambrosiaster joins a Julia Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi latine secundum Editionem Sancti Hieronymi (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 2:147. See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, SJ, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 736, who cites Ambrosiaster’s Commentarius in ep. ad Romanos 16.7 (CSEL 81.480) [Iuliam]. 26 See Epp, Junia, 27–28; 36. Erasmus, after mentioning his preference for “Junia,” adds, “He [Paul] gives Julia her own place later on,” a reference to Rom 16:15 (see ibid., 28). 27 A possibility raised, e.g., by C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 2:788, n. 1; and Fitzmyer, Romans, 737. 28 Curiously, the RSV, NIV, and NRSV in 16:15 do not translate the καί between Philologus and Julia, but the two persons would appear to be one of the many pairs whom Paul greets in Romans 16. For ᾿Ιουλίαν, Νηρέα, P46 reads Βηρέα καὶ ᾿Αουλίαν. 29 See the statistics compiled by Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 169: Twenty-four Christians are named in Rom 16:7; checking the occurrences of these names, “Julia” occurs over 1,400 times, with “Hermes” the next most common, with 841 occurrences; “Junia” is found over 250 times.

132

Epp

with Andronicus in vs. 7, but a Junia with Philologus in vs. 15, a curious reversal. What point issues from the “Julia” variation in 16:7 and from the reversed variants in Ambrosiaster? It becomes clear that all these witnesses, running from ca. 200 to the numerous late minuscules (into the eighteenth century!) attest to a woman companion of Andronicus— and that no male figure is in their tradition.30 This makes it all the more unlikely that a man, the alleged Junias, is represented by the unaccented ᾿Ιουνιαν of Rom 16:7, and, as I have concluded in the recent book on Junia, Junias can and should be removed from our considerations, just as he has disappeared completely from the NA27 and from the UBS4 (1998 and later printings of those joint editions).31 The Definite Article τούς The definite article before συναιχμαλώτους μου (“my fellow prisoners”) occurs in P46 and B (03, Codex Vaticanus, mid-4th cent.), and it has 30 Among the latest minuscules containing in Rom 16:7, sixty-two date in the 15th century (including ten dated manuscripts); thirty-one are from the 16th century (including six dated manuscripts); seven are 17th century (including five dated manuscripts); and two stem from the 18th century (both dated manuscripts: minuscule 1104 copied in 1702 and 2318 dated 1742). 31 Except that, in the current UBS printings, ᾿Ιουνιᾶν, (the masculine form) remains in “The Discourse Segmentation Apparatus” for Rom 16:7, which indicates different levels of text (clauses, paragraphs, sub-paragraphs, etc.) in various Greek editions and modern language translations, but also marginal readings. ᾿Ιουνιᾶν (i.e., “Junias”) is listed as a marginal reading in the REB and the NRSV. The masculine form also has been retained, curiously and without warrant, I think, in connection with the ᾿Ιουνιαν variant to ᾿Ιουλίαν (“Julia”) in Rom 16:15, where the apparatus suggests that ᾿Ιουνιαν might represent either “᾿Ιουνίαν fem. or ᾿Ιουνιᾶν masc.” Once ᾿Ιουνίαν (with the feminine accent) has been printed in the joint text of the 1998 ΝΑ27 and UBS4, and the masculine form has been eliminated in 16:7 (text and apparatus)–presumably on the grounds that the name is not viable—the editors should have dropped the feminine/masculine alternative possibility in 16:15 as well. In addition, “Junias” should be removed from the standard reference works that have perpetuated this hypothetical figure for a century and a quarter (see Epp, Junia, 53–59), though this will not happen in the near term. The full argument against the hypothetical ᾿Ιουνιᾶς (“Junias”) can be followed in my Junia, 23–59, et passim.

Minor Variants in Romans 16:7

133

been proposed that the presence of τούς before “my fellow prisoners” indicates that the greeting should be read as follows: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots, and [Greet] my fellow prisoners, who are prominent among the apostles, who were in Christ even before me.

On this understanding of the text, Andronicus and Junia are to be distinguished from another group, namely, Paul’s fellow prisoners, who were Christians before he was, and who are the ones who stand out among the apostles. Hence, Andronicus and Junia, on this reading, would not be among the apostles, and, as Bart D. Ehrman suggested, the scribes who created or perpetuated the τοὺς before “my fellow prisoners” “have effectively prepared the way for scholars concerned to rob Junia of her apostleship”32—as well as Andronicus of his. P46 and B are venerable witnesses to the early text of the New Testament, and their readings command attention; yet, the remainder of the massive extant manuscript tradition for this passage does not contain τοὺς at this point in the text. Moreover, it is pertinent to ask whether, in reality, it is likely that the variant τοὺς was, or can be understood as separating Andronicus and Junia from the apostles. It is far more likely that it was an addition made in the interest of improving the parallelism with the preceding phrase, which also contains τούς: ἀσπάσασθε ᾿Ανδρόνικον καὶ ᾿Ιουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ τοὺς συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν έν Χριστῷ. 32 Ehrman, “The Use and Significance of Patristic Evidence for New Testament Textual Criticism,” New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History: A Discussion of Methods (eds. Barbara Aland and Joël Delobel; CBET 7; Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1994), 134; idem, Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperSanFranciso, 2005), 185: “With this textual change, no longer does one need to worry about a woman being cited among the apostolic band of men!” See also Schulz, “Romans 16:7: Junia or Junias?,” 135.

134

Epp

The second τοὺς appears, then, to be a secondary reading. Moreover, even with the second τοὺς present, there is no compelling reason to postulate, in this sentence, an additional greeting to a second, distinct group. The sentence is nicely balanced (with or without the second τούς): Greet Andronicus and Junia [ Julia in P46], my compatriots and my fellow prisoners, who are prominent among the apostles, who were in Christ even before me.

Indeed, given the litany of greetings in Romans 16, an additional ἀσπάσασθε (“Greet…”) would be expected if a separate greeting had been intended for Paul’s “fellow prisoners.” Observe the current presentation in chapter 16: Greet Prisca and Aquila… (v. 3). Greet also the church in their house. (v. 5). Greet my beloved Epaenetus… (v. 5). Greet Mary… (v. 6). Greet Andronicus and Junia [ Julia in P46]… (v. 7). Greet Ampliatus… (v. 8). Greet Urbanus… and Stachys (v. 9). Greet Apelles… (v. 10). Greet… the family of Aristobulus (v. 10).

These nine items, all beginning with “Greet…,” are followed by nine more identical formulations, and it is highly unlikely, therefore, that the intention in v. 7 was to presume an unwritten ἀσπάσασθε that would introduce a greeting to a separate group that has no personal names, but only “my fellow prisoners.” This would be unlike all the other greetings in Romans 16, for each greeting specifies one or more named individuals, and every unnamed person is clearly linked to a named individual, such as “his mother” (i.e., Rufus’s) in v. 14, and “his sister” (i.e., Nereus’s sister) in v. 15. Also in v. 14 the “brothers and sisters” (NRSV) who are “with them” are with Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, and Hermas, and in v. 15, the greeting to “all the saints” also is linked “with them,” but this time they are the four named individuals: Philologus, Julia, Nereus, and Olympas. Likewise in v. 5 “the church in their house” is specifically that of Prisca and Aquila. As a

Minor Variants in Romans 16:7

135

result, every group that is mentioned, “all the saints” and “the church…,” also are identified as connected with named persons, but “fellow prisoners,” if that were another group and not a description of Andronicus and Junia, would alone be lacking such a link. If it were argued that “‘my’ fellow prisoners” connects this group with a person, namely, Paul, it can be stated, to the contrary, that whenever “my” appears in this chapter of greetings, the person involved is named: “my beloved Epaenetus” (v. 5); “Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord” (v. 8); “my beloved Stachys” (v. 9); and “my relative Herodian” (v. 11). We may be confident, then, that the greeting to Andronicus and Junia [ Julia in P46] includes all four characterizations in 16:7. 1) They are Paul’s fellow countrymen (i.e., Jews). 2) They had been prisoners— not necessarily with Paul (that is, at the same time and place) but prisoners like Paul. 3) They are apostles and outstanding among them. And 4) they were Christians prior to Paul’s calling. It is of further interest that, though Andronicus and Junia do not come first in the list of those greeted—an honour granted to Prisca and Aquila33—yet Andronicus and Junia are accorded the longest list of descriptors in this lengthy array of persons greeted. Andronicus and Junia therefore retain their status of “outstanding among the apostles.” The Apostles “in Christ before Me” A variant following the clause, “who are outstanding among the apostles,” limits these particular apostles to those who were Christians before Paul was called: ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, τοῖς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ: Andronicus and Junia are “outstanding among the apostles, [namely] those in Christ before me.” The three words, τοῖς πρὸ ἐμοῦ, that replace οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν (“who [Andronicus and Junia] were in Christ even before me”) occur in Dp (06, 6th cent.), Fp (010, 9th cent.), Gp (012, 9th cent.), Old Latin manuscripts, Vulgate manuscripts, and 33 It has not gone unnoticed that Prisca’s name precedes that of Aquila, a clear indication that, in the case of this married couple, she was the one prominent in matters related to the (or at least, a) church in Rome: see Rom 16:2. She is first also in Acts 18:18 and 18:26, though when first introduced in Acts (18:2), where the two are identified as a married couple, Aquila is first mentioned, followed by a reference to Priscilla (as she is called in Acts). It is Aquila and Prisca in 1 Cor 16:19, but Prisca and Aquila in 2 Tim 4:19. See Fitzmyer, Romans, 735–36.

136

Epp

Ambrosiaster. Their effect is to remove from Andronicus and Junia the characterization that “they were in Christ before me,” i.e., before Paul, and to affirm now that Andronicus and Junia are prominent among those apostles who were Christians before Paul was.34 If Paul in Gal 1:17 raises the stature of and shows respect for “those who were already apostles before me (πρὸ ἐμοῦ),” then it might be said that the variant slightly diminishes Andronicus and Junia in favour of apostles who are senior to Paul—and to them. Even so, the result does not change the status of Andronicus and Junia in any significant fashion, nor does it substantially alter the group among whom Andronicus and Junia are prominent. Of course, the text without this restrictive description and which specifies that Andronicus and Junia were Christians before Paul is supported by ē(*) (01, mid-4th cent.), B (03, mid-4th cent.), A (02, 5th cent.), etc., an array of impressive witnesses that easily persuaded the UBS Editorial Committee to include the full relative clause in their text35—and also, of course, in the Nestle-Aland edition. An Apostle “in Christ before Me” A second variant in the same variation unit is found only in P46, a change to a singular relative pronoun and to a singular verb: ὃς καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγονεν ἐν Χριστῷ, “who [masculine singular] was in Christ even before me,” in place of οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ,36 “who [plural] were in Christ even before me.” Though it is difficult to construe the result grammatically, the “sense” could be this: “Greet Andronicus and Junia… who are prominent among the apostles, [and] he [Andronicus] was in Christ even before me.” Since both the subject and the verb in this clause are singular, a simple scribal error37 perhaps may be 34 See Cranfield, Romans, 2:790, n. 1; he also suggests, as does Fitzmyer, Romans, 740, that the variant in Dp Fp Gp may have been influenced by Gal 1:17, where Paul refers to “those who were already apostles before me.” 35 See Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1st ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971), 539; the variant is not discussed in the 2d ed. (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1994), 475–76. 36 This is the reading of all other manuscripts, though Dp Fp Gp have the additional ᾿Ιησοῦ following Χριστῷ (see below). 37 Cranfield, Romans, 2:790, n. 1, says the variant in P46 “can only be a mistake.”

Minor Variants in Romans 16:7

137

ruled out, though the variant clause could have come about in several ways. For example, if ὃι became ὃς accidentally, a later copyist may have altered the plural verb to a singular to conform to ὅς, or if the verb had been altered inadvertently (epsilon to alpha), the relative pronoun might have been conformed to it. If this variant clause introduced by a masculine singular relative pronoun were a deliberate attempt to affirm that only Andronicus (and not Junia—here Julia) was “in Christ” before Paul,38 it is an extremely awkward and flawed effort. Even if so intended, however, the variant changes little. ᾿Ιησοῦ following Χριστῷ Finally, a common textual variation in the New Testament consists in filling out the name/titles of Jesus. To the last word in Rom 16:7, Χριστῷ, a few witnesses have an additional ᾿Ιησοῦ—namely Dp Fp Gp and Ambrosiaster. Since scribes show a strong tendency to expand a reference to Jesus (regardless of which term is present: Jesus, Christ, or Lord) by using one or two of the other appellations, it is not surprising that the phenomenon occurs in this passage. Usually, however, this is of little text-critical significance, unless the practice should be endemic and pursued with some measure of consistency or pattern in a given manuscript or text type.39 In the present case, these features are not operative, and the additional “Jesus” here must be regarded as secondary.40 38 This is at most its significance, rather than that it would signify that only Andronicus was “outstanding among the apostles,” as Schulz, “Romans 16:7: Junia or Junias?,” 135, mentions—though it is not a view to which he subscribes. 39 As I have argued in the case of the “Western” or “D” text: see The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTSMS 3; Cambridge: University Press, 1966; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 54–55, and esp. 62–64, 163; and discussed further in idem, “Anti-Judaic Tendencies in the D-Text of Acts: Forty Years of Conversation,” The Book of Acts as Church History: Text, Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations/Apostelgeschichte als Kirchengeschichte: Text, Texttraditionen und antike Auslegungen (ed. Tobias Nicklas and Michael Tilly; BZNW 120; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003), 134–35; reprinted and updated in PNTTC, 725–26. 40 In Romans 16, there are fifteen occurrences of “Lord,” “Jesus,” or “Christ,” with only three of these containing a combination of two terms (at least in the

138

Epp

The Text of P46 in Romans 16:7 The full text of P46 in Rom 16:7 deserves examination because it contains three out of the five variant readings found in this single verse, namely, “Julia,” the second τούς, and “he who was in Christ even before me.” It reads as follows in accented Greek (with an itacism removed and the nomen sacrum written out): ἀσπάσασθε ᾿Ανδρόνικον καὶ ᾿Ιουλίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ τοὺς συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, ὃς καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγονεν έν Χριστῷ. This might be translated as follows, accepting, but only for the moment, the highly doubtful interpretation of τοὺς before “fellow prisoners”: Greet Andronicus and Julia, my compatriots, and [greet] my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles—he was in Christ even before me.

But the last clause makes little if any sense when two greetings are presumed. Rather, rejecting the view that the second τοὺς divides those greeted into two groups, the version of the verse in P46 might be translated in this way: Greet Andronicus and Julia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles— he was in Christ even before me.

This is more meaningful, though the final clause (“he…”) still has no clear, and certainly no smooth syntactical relationship to what precedes. Of course, Günther Zuntz, in his magisterial work on P46, long ago alerted us to the distinction that must be drawn between the “excellent quality of the text” of P46 and “the very poor work of the scribe who penned it,” for the manuscript “abounds with scribal blunders, omissions, and NA27/UBS4 text): 16:3, “Christ Jesus”; 16:18, “Lord Christ”; 16:20, “Lord Jesus.” In only three cases is an additional name or title present (in the NA27 apparatus): 16:7, the addition of “Jesus” to Christ”; 16:9, “Lord” preceding “Christ” in C Dp Fp Gp Ψ 81 326 385 630 al it copbo ms; and 16:20, “Christ” added to “Lord Jesus” in A C Ψ 33 1739 Maj lat sy cop. It will be noted that two of these, in 16:7 and 16:9, occur in the group Dp Fp Gp, though two variations out of a possible fifteen hardly constitutes a pattern. Note: NA27 and UBS4, naturally, do not include all such variations in their apparatuses; see Tischendorf8, e.g., on Rom 16:7; 16:18; Wordsworth and White, Nouum Testamentum, 2:145-51 on 16:5; 16:7; 16:8; 16:9; 16:10; 16:18.

Minor Variants in Romans 16:7

139

also additions.”41 In view of this assessment, an ungrammatical reading singular to P46 need not be given further consideration.

Conclusion Do these five variant readings, singly or collectively, have “a story to tell”? That is a question asked increasingly by what has become known as “narrative textual criticism.”42 It is clear, I think, that no collective viewpoint or tendency emerges from these five points of variation. When considered individually, however, a possible story emerges here and there. The first variant, “Julia” for “Junia,” reinforces the univocal manuscript tradition that a woman was the companion of and co-prisoner with Andronicus. “Julia” likely slipped into the tradition either because of the Julia in Rom 16:15 or because a scribe, unintentionally, likely would write the far more common name “Julia” for “Junia.” Or might there have been an intent to supplant the apostle Junia by inserting the name of another woman? As far as I know, neither the apostle Junia nor the apostle Andronicus is described in early Christianity apart from their connection with Rom 16:7 or with descriptors additional to those found in that text,43 and they were not “household 41 Günther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (Schweich Lectures, 1946; London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1953), 212. Sanders, A Third-Century Papyrus Codex, does not comment on the quality of the scribe’s work. 42 See Epp, PNTTC, xxxix–xl; 736–37; 748. 43 The only text I have seen that describes Andronicus and Junia in terms other than those in Rom 16:7 (though it still mentions Paul’s greeting to them) was offered to me by Stanley B. Marrow, SJ. It is from the Menologium Basilianum [Basilius Porphyrogenitus Imp.], Pars III, no. 103 (PG 117: 462) from the period 977–90, and Professor Marrow provided the translation: The Same Month [May] the 17th day. Memorial of the holy apostles Andronicus, one of the Seventy, and Junia. Andronicus, apostle of Christ, went all over the world, as if carried on wings, to preach Christ and overthrow all errors. He implanted piety and the knowledge of God. He had with him a companion and helper in the divine preaching, the admirable Junia, who was dead to the world and to the flesh, and alive only in the service of Christ. They converted many unbelievers to the knowledge of God, and led them to Christ, making them children of the day and of the light through baptism. They

140

Epp

names.” Nor was the Julia of Rom 16:15—who is otherwise unknown. Hence, substituting “Julia” for “Junia” would hardly function to isolate or to diminish Junia. On the other hand and just for the sake of argument, if, for example, the variant were “Lydia,” a name familiar from a Pauline narrative in Acts 16 (vv. 14 and 40) though not occurring in Paul’s letters, it might be postulated more plausibly that this was a scribal attempt to displace Junia by interjecting a better-known name. But the Julia variant discloses no such motivation—and no “story” of interest or significance is apparent other than confirming the tradition of a female name in Rom 16:7 and thereby supporting the tradition of a woman apostle, Junia. There is no thought, either, that “Julia” represents the earliest text here, given the overwhelming manuscript, versional, and patristic support for “Junia.” The second variant, an additional τοὺς that allegedly removes the title “apostle” from both Andronicus and Junia, would be a “headline story” if the proposal had any merit, but the second τοὺς in the passage is far more likely explained as providing better balance in the sentence; hence its absence constitutes the “harder reading.” In the final analysis, then, there is no significant story in this variant either. Neither does the third variant rate a “headline,” for, while altering the description of Andronicus and Junia from those “who were in Christ even before I was,” it affirms that the “apostles” among whom the pair are outstanding were “the ones in Christ” before Paul. At most this would enhance the status of apostles who were senior to Paul, but more likely it would be received as merely a bit of historical information of some interest that would not alter materially the main fact that Andronicus and Junia were prominent among the apostles. Though it might be called a “Western” reading,44 it has no claim to be the earliest reading. Similar is the fourth variant, found only in P46, which at best is a bungled attempt to say that only Andronicus, not Junia [but here Julia], was in Christ even before Paul was. If it had any merit, syntactically or otherwise, it might be heard as a “put down” for the woman apostle. Or thus built up the church of Christ everywhere. Paul the apostle, a light to the whole world, mentions them in his epistles: “Greet,” he says, “Andronicus and Junia.” After having cast out unclean spirits from men, and having cured incurable diseases, they went home to the Lord. I notice now that Fitzmyer, Romans, 738, quotes the last portion. 44 Metzger, ed., Textual Commentary1, 539.

Minor Variants in Romans 16:7

141

it might be received as only another tidbit of information, but nothing to “write home about.” Text-critically, it must be characterized as “a scribal blunder.”45 Finally, the fifth variant is an example of a frequent phenomenon in the New Testament text: filling out the name and titles of Jesus. Though a consistent pattern of such enhancements might indicate a special theological (Christological) purpose, no such motivation emerges from this lone instance in its context.46 One further step should be taken: Does P46 have its own meaningful version of Rom 16:7, given its three variants in this single sentence? It offers the “Julia” variant, the second τοὺς in the description of Andronicus and Junia/Julia, and limits the status of being a Christian prior to Paul to a masculine singular person, presumably Andronicus. While a woman remains in the picture, some might argue, for instance, that P46 shows a tendency 1) to suppress the apostleship of Andronicus and Julia (through the additional greeting hypothesis) and 2) to defer Julia’s conversion to Christianity to a time after Paul accepted the call to a mission for Christ, perhaps also a slightly negative move. But three points are highly doubtful. First, the name “Julia” is not a credible reading in 16:7, for it cannot compete with the overwhelming consensus on ”Junia” in the first eighteen hundred years of Christianity–with only a dozen or so manuscripts, versions, or patristic sources joining P46 in reading or referring to “Julia.” Second, while the theory of an added and separate greeting to Paul’s fellow prisoners—if it could be validated—would deprive Andronicus and Julia/Junia of their apostleship, the theory is hardly plausible when the structure of Romans 16 is analysed. Third, it is unwarranted to consider a variant without a syntactical relationship to its sentence to be an adequate indication that Julia’s/Junia’s Christian conversion was subsequent to that of Andronicus and later than Paul’s calling. If, in P46, there were an intention to diminish a woman apostle in any possible fashion, this is at best a bungled attempt. As already noted, none of the variants of P46 commends itself as the earliest reading in its variation unit. In conclusion, then, Andronicus and Junia, Paul’s compatriots (i.e., Jews) and fellow prisoners, were in Christ even before him, but above all, they were apostles and outstanding among them. 45 Ibid. 46 See nn. 39–40, above.

The Spirit and Resurrection in Paul: Text and Meaning in Romans 8:11 Gordon D. Fee, Regent College, Vancouver One of the more idiosyncratic expressions of New Testament theology over the past half-century has been the notion that the Holy Spirit is the divine agent of resurrection, both of Christ’s and of ours. While there are no inherent theological difficulties with this view, the question is whether it accords with what Paul himself actually affirms. At issue in part is a considerable textual variation in Rom 8:11, whether Paul said that God “will give life to your mortal bodies διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν (through His Spirit who indwells you)” or διὰ τὸν ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεύμα ἐν ὑμῖν (because of His Spirit who indwells you). I say in part because historically the genitive reading has generally been understood not as instrumental but as the basis for the Spirit’s future giving life to those whom God will raise from the dead. Nonetheless, once this view of the Spirit’s agency took hold on the basis of this passage, then several other passages were brought in to support it, none of which in fact makes this point. The primary purpose of this paper is to offer the textual evidence and exegetical arguments in favour of what all ordinary textual investigation should posit as Paul’s original text, which in turn undercuts the only possible evidence in Paul for the idea that the Spirit is the divine agent of resurrection.1 But before that, I begin with an overview of the 1 And as will be pointed out below, even this is a questionable

142

Spirit and resurrection in paul

143

alleged support for such a notion and a brief analysis of the other texts that are sometimes brought in as support.

The Spirit as the Divine Agent of Resurrection—an Overview of the Evidence We need to note at the outset that whether or not the Spirit is the agent of Christ’s resurrection, and mutatis mutandis of ours, is of little ultimate consequence theologically. That is, as pointed out in my God’s Empowering Presence, nothing is gained or lost at this point regarding our understanding of the role of the Spirit in Paul’s theology one way or the other.2 At issue, therefore, is one’s understanding of verse 11 in the context of Romans 8 and in the larger context of the entire letter, and that includes an adequate handling of the textual issue, which must precede discussion of meaning. It is of some interest, therefore, that the majority of commentaries in English, while adopting what is almost surely the secondary text (for reasons noted below), nonetheless read that text in a way that supports the only possible meaning of what is here deemed to be the original text, namely, that the Spirit is not the agent of our future bodily resurrection but the guarantor of such.3 That is, Paul nowhere either asserts or suggests that the Spirit will raise us to life eternal; resurrection is always seen as the activity of God the Father. Rather, Paul asserts that the Spirit’s present indwelling as the “life-giving Spirit” is the certain basis that our mortal bodies will be resurrected by God himself. Nonetheless, during the last half of the last century one finds the suggestion emerging in a variety of contexts that Paul understood the Spirit as the actual agent of our resurrection, and if so, then also of as the logical corollary.4 The first scholar apparently to suggest this in a understanding of the secondary text itself. 2 See Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass.; Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 543, n. 205, 808–09. 3 On this point, see the discussion in Fee, Empowering Presence, 552–54. Contrary to Dunn’s assertion, I neither suggested nor implied that the Spirit is the “means of salvation,” but rather the indwelling Spirit serves as the guarantor of our future resurrection. 4 E.g., see M. B. B. Turner, who in dealing with our text, asserts that “the Spirit raised Jesus” (“The Significance of Spirit Endowment for Paul,” VE 9

144

Fee

direct way was Neill Hamilton, in his published PhD dissertation, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul.5 In an effort to show what he perceived as the close identity between Christ and the Spirit, he asserted that the Spirit is to be seen as the agent of Christ’s resurrection in such texts as Rom 1:4; 6:4; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:45; and 2 Cor 3:17. While the latter two texts have been shown elsewhere to be misguided understandings of Paul,6 and therefore play no serious role in subsequent studies, one occasionally finds the other three texts still brought forward to substantiate the view that the Spirit is responsible for raising Christ and/or believers from the dead.7 But a careful look at [1975], 64), even though this is not so much as hinted at in the text. This is based on a (common) misreading of how Paul begins his sentence: “if the Spirit of the One [i.e., God] who raised Christ from the dead dwells in you.” Although the sentence becomes a bit convoluted, Paul’s point in context is clear enough. His concern is to demonstrate that the Spirit who indwells the believers in Rome (both Jew and Gentile) is not only sufficient for life in the present apart from keeping Torah, but is also the sure guarantee of our future bodily resurrection. Thus what some see as convoluted in Paul is hardly so. He is intent on keeping two realities together: that God is the prime “actor” regarding the believers’ sure future; and that the guarantee of this certainty is the present indwelling Spirit. 5 Published as no. 6 in the SJT Occasional Papers (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957); see pp. 12–15. It is of interest that until C. E. B. Cranfield’s commentary (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979]), this view had failed to emerge in the English language commentary tradition—even though the text being commented on was the genitive. 6 For 2 Cor 3:17, see J. D. G. Dunn, “2 Corinthians iii.17—‘The Lord is the Spirit’,” JTS 21 (1970), 309–20; and Fee, Empowering Presence, 311–14. For 1 Cor 15:45, see N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 30–35; and Fee, Empowering Presence, 264–67. 7 See, e.g., Brendan Byrne, ‘Sons of God’–‘Seed of Abraham’ (AnBib 83; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 96 (believers only); Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to Luke-Acts ( JSNTSup 54: Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 288, esp. n. 1 (Christ); James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God (WUNT 2/48; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1992), 256–57; Archie W. D. Hui, “The Concept of the Holy Spirit in Ephesians and its Relation to the Pneumatologies of Luke and Paul” (PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 1992), 153, 166–69 (both Christ and believers); Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids:

Spirit and resurrection in paul

145

these three texts in context demonstrates how thoroughly problematic such a view is. Romans 1:4 The issue in Romans 1:3–4 is complex for a number of reasons, especially the juxtaposition of the three prepositional phrases, ἐν δυνάμει (“with power”), κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (“with respect to the Spirit of holiness”) and ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (“on the basis of his resurrection from the dead”) between τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ (“who was declared Son of God”) and the final apposition ’Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Those who think that the Spirit is the agent of the resurrection expressed in the ἐξ ἀναστάσεως phrase that follows the Spirit phrase do so by asserting without evidence that Paul’s κατὰ here carries the force of agency.8 But that is an appeal to an altogether unlikely meaning in order to make a point quite irrelevant to the concerns of Paul’s sentence. Indeed, it is a usage not even recognized in BDAG, which lists its use here (correctly in my view) under the rubric, “denoting relationship to something.”9 Not only so, but such an instrumental understanding of this preposition rather completely destroys the intentional contrast between Christ’s being of the seed of David κατὰ σάρκα (“with respect to his earthly life”) and his present exaltation “with respect to the Spirit of holiness.” It need only be noted further that without the (non-verifiable) instrumental use of κατά, this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the Spirit’s agency in Christ’s resurrection; rather it has the appearance of a counsel of despair to support a very questionable point of view regarding the Spirit’s role in Christ’s resurrection. Romans 6:4 To find the Spirit as the agent of Christ’s resurrection in this passage is Eerdmans, 1998), 261–62 (believers only). 8 E.g., see J. M. Scott (Adoption, 256), who simply asserts without evidence that “that the Holy Spirit is the means (κατά…) by which the Messiah is appointed Son of God in power;” cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 236, who likewise interpets it as expressing agency, but without evidence; and Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. (trans. S. J. Hafemann; Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1994), 19. That is simply to play fast and loose with grammar. 9 BDAG, 513.

146

Fee

an even greater counsel of despair. Here Paul asserts that “just as Christ was raised from the dead διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός (through the glory of the Father), we too may live a new life.” Of this passage Hamilton asserts (correctly) that “glory suggests the state to which Christ attained at His exaltation.” But he then goes on (in the same sentence) to assert further, “and behind that state lies the Spirit,” although he offers no evidence for such. Nonetheless, on the basis of this unfounded assertion he goes on in the next sentence to affirm: “Then we may conclude that the same Spirit is the agent at work behind the glory which raised up Christ.”10 To the contrary, it is hard to imagine anyone’s seeing this phrase as a reference to the Spirit without a prior agenda in hand. The problem is twofold. First, one wonders how possibly the Roman recipients of this letter, who at best knew Pauline theology only second-hand, could have so understood the passage. What would have given them the clue, one wonders, since apart from 1:4 noted above, the only role the Spirit has played heretofore in the letter is a strictly soteriological one (2:29; 5:5)? Furthermore, how could anyone possibly go on to verify such a view, since the equation of the Spirit with the Father’s glory is not found elsewhere else in the Pauline corpus? While Christ is sometimes (especially in 2 Cor 3:18–4:6) referred to in such language, Paul never does so with regard to the Spirit. One may therefore safely conclude that this passage has nothing at all to do with the Spirit’s role in Christ’s resurrection. 1 Corinthians 6:14 Here Paul is asserting for the first time in the corpus that the believer’s future bodily resurrection is predicated on Christ’s past resurrection. In so doing he affirms that just as God raised the Lord, he “will also raise us διὰ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ (through his power).” In this case it is hard to argue against the possibility that “power” here is a synecdoche for the Spirit. But in fact Paul does not say the latter and almost certainly means exactly what he says, that God’s power is at work in raising the dead, and only one’s having another agenda in hand would cause one to read “Spirit” for “power.” This is even more the case when one considers that this passage, 10 Hamilton, Holy Spirit and Eschatology, 14.

Spirit and resurrection in paul

147

while responding directly to an urgent behavioural aberration on the part of some of the Corinthian men, at the same time anticipates the much larger issue of the future bodily resurrection of believers — which the present passage and Chapter 15 together indicate is something that some in Corinth are vigorously denying. That long argument, it should be pointed out, for a future bodily resurrection of believers on the basis of Christ’s own bodily resurrection follows hard on the heels of the long section offering substantial correction to their abuse of Spirit gifting. Thus one might perhaps expect some mention of the Spirit in Chapter 15, if in fact “power” in 6:14 referred to the Spirit. But such is not the case, which seems thereby to call into serious question the view that “power” in this passage is even an oblique referent to the Spirit. The net result of this brief look at these texts is that there is no passage where Paul either asserts or implies that the Spirit was the divine agent of Christ’s resurrection. Those who think otherwise either try to find it where it is not found, or else misread Romans 8:11 as suggesting as much. At the same time we are also left with this passage as the singular text, which by one (very suspect) textual reading serves as the basis for understanding the believer’s future resurrection in this way. So we turn next, then, to the textual question itself.

The Textual Question We begin by looking carefully at the two variant readings and their supporting evidence: 1) διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος (“through his indwelling Spirit”) ē A C Pc 81 104 256 263 436 1319 1506 1573 1852 1962 2127 Epiphaniuspt Cyril-Jerusalem Hippolytus

2) διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα (“because of/on the basis of his indwelling Spirit”) B D F G Ψ 6 33 424 459 1175 1241 1739 1881 (1912) 2200 2464 Maj itpl Irenaeus Origen

Regarding this evidence Bruce Metzger offers this singularly abbreviated comment in the UBS Textual Commentary:11 11 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

148

Fee Remembering that in the Pauline corpus the weight of B when associated with D G (as here) is quite considerably lessened, a majority of the Committee preferred the genitive case, on the basis of the combination of text-types, including the Alexandrian (ē A C 81), Palestinian (syrpal Cyril-Jerusalem), and Western (it61? Hippolytus).

But that seems to be an especially strange way of looking at the external evidence—because in the Pauline corpus, when the so-called Egyptian tradition is split, the combination of B 1739 (usually accompanied by P46, which is unfortunately lacunose at this point) far more often than otherwise represents this tradition (and here they are joined also by Ψ and 33). Furthermore, there is far more significant “Western” evidence for the text of B 1739 than for that of ē A. This note might therefore have more legitimately been expressed like this: Given that the primary Alexandrian witnesses B and 1739 (plus Ψ 33) are joined by a significant majority of both the Western witnesses (D F G itpl Irenaeus) and the Byzantine tradition, the majority of the Committee preferred the accusative case as having the best external support. This is supported as well on the transcriptional grounds that in this context, as a modifier of the verb ζῳοποιήσει it is far more likely that a scribe would have changed the more difficult accusative (“because of ”) to the genitive of secondary agency (“through”).12 (2d ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 456. The genitive case is either assumed or argued for in most of the commentaries in English that I have on my shelf, except for Barth and Fitzmyer (hesitantly): C. K. Barrett, F. F. Bruce, B. Byrne, J. Calvin, J. Denney, C. H. Dodd, J. D. G. Dunn, F. Godet, C. Hodge, E. Käsemann, D. J. Moo, L. Morris, J. Murray, Sanday and Headlam, A. Schlatter, T. Schreiner, P. Stuhlmacher. 12 What is a cause for some wonder, if not hesitation as to whether I am missing something, is how few scholars have chosen to go with what seems so obviously the original text, since 1) it has the better supporting evidence, 2) it is easily the lectio difficilior, and 3) one cannot even imagine the circumstances that might have caused a scribe (or scribes) to change a reading, which on the surface makes perfectly good sense, to one that requires some reflection on what Paul is actually saying. The only scholars that I found who support this reading are Karl Barth, who notes Zahn before him (K. Barth, The Epistle to the Romans [trans. E. C. Hoskyns; reprint; London: Oxford University Press, 1968], 287, n.1), Fitzmyer (hesitantly—Romans, 491–92), and E. Schweizer

Spirit and resurrection in paul

149

The point to be made first, then, is that the external evidence does not favour the genitive at all, but the accusative; furthermore, the weight of the evidence in this case is not evenly split as is so often asserted,13 but leans quite heavily in favour of the accusative. In fact it seems far more likely that the “agreement” of the various early witnesses to the secondary text, the genitive, is best explained on simple transcriptional grounds—as incidental agreement of an understandable change to the text made more than once—rather than as an agreement of genetic relationship. What is more difficult to imagine as a historical probability is that a change from an original genitive reading—over which no one would stumble—to the far more difficult accusative could have been made so early and often as to become the predominant reading. That is—how, one wonders, could this change have happened more than once and at such an early stage so as to become the majority reading? That leads us, then, to look in turn at the issues of “transcriptional probability” (what change a scribe or scribes is most likely to have made) and of “intrinsic probability” (what Paul is most likely to have written). The former is the key issue for textual decision-making; the latter is an attempt to show how much sense the “more difficult reading” does in (in “πνεῦμα, πνευματικός, κτλ.,” TDNT 6:422, n.591), who notes Volkmar’s Römerbrief and likewise recognizes it as the lectio difficilior. Cranfield’s argument against Schweizer (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:329, n.2) takes up only what I see as a red herring, namely Schweizer’s contention that this idea does not occur elsewhere in Paul. What Cranfield fails to do is to take the transcriptional issue seriously enough (see the discussion below). Among recent English translations, only the TNIV has chosen to go with the more likely original text. 13 Thomas R. Schreiner’s assertion to the contrary (Romans [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], 417), that “the evidence is finely balanced” and that it “slightly favors the genitive” is simply not true (cf. Cranfield, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:391–92, for a similar judgment). For example, how does a single questionable reading in the Itala “balance” the bulk of the Western evidence on the other side? And how does the evidence of Cyril of Alexandria carry more weight than the much earlier combined evidence of Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian? Furthermore, the idea that the Alexandrian evidence is “finely balanced” is at best a half-truth. One does not always blindly follow the combination of B 1739, but one needs compelling reasons to think that their witness is the corruption, since this is simply not true in the vast majority of cases.

150

Fee

fact make in the present argument in the letter.

Transcriptional Probability—The Mind of the Scribe In support of my assertion that transcriptional probability favours the accusative as original, it must be noted, first, that the change can only have been deliberate not accidental. That is, it is difficult to imagine that a trained scribe could have made the considerable addition or omission to both ἐνοικοῦντος and πνεύματος either carelessly or thoughtlessly.14 At issue, then, is this: given one or the other before him, what change would a scribe most likely have made? And at this point one can note that διά with the genitive is such a natural reading in a context of resurrection,15 that it is hard to imagine the circumstances in which a change from that to the accusative could have happened at all, let alone that it could have happened so early and often so as to have made its way into the entire textual stream as the predominant reading. What is striking in the literature, therefore, including Metzger’s Textual Commentary, is the absence of any serious discussion as to how transcriptional probability favours the genitive. To be sure, Cranfield (and he is the only commentary I know who has taken the transcriptional matter seriously) has offered that it was changed to reflect the accusatives in verse 10. Moo, on the other hand, argues on the basis of intrinsic probability—that the context favours the genitive.16 But Cranfield’s own note gives evidence of the difficulty one faces 14 Even if this were a case of a scribe’s “seeing one thing but expecting, and thus writing, another,” the change must of necessity have gone from the “shorter” reading to the longer. He might have missed the fact that he added -τος in the first instance, but he could scarcely have done so with the second word (his eye has to return to his exemplar at some point!). 15 This is evidenced not only by such passages as Rom 6:4 and 1 Cor 4:16 noted above, but by the very fact that many modern scholars wish to read the κατὰ in Rom 1:4 as though used to indicate means, joining it to the prepositional phrase for the resurrection rather than giving it its common meaning and have it modify (predominantly so in Paul) the preceding verbal phrase. 16 See Cranfield, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:391–92; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 471. Moo’s argument would seem actually to favour the accusative, under the rubric “the more difficult reading is to be preferred as the original.”

Spirit and resurrection in paul

151

when asking the transcriptional question about this variant. Besides the suggestion just noted, he offers two further “reasons” for preferring the genitive as original, only the first of which has to do with transcriptional probability: “It is not easy to think of a really plausible explanation of either the accidental or the deliberate alteration of the accusative to the genitive.” But this, of course, is a “reason” for adopting the genitive only if one begins with the assumption that the genitive is in fact original. For one who thinks the better textual evidence supports the accusative, one can offer a simple reason for the change, namely, that when a scribe’s eye landed on a διὰ following the phrase [God] ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν, instinct would immediately expect an expression of agency, since the scribe would have had as much difficulty with the accusative as most modern scholars have had. Here, then, is a clear case where “the more difficult reading” is to be preferred as the original, since “difficult” in this case is true for both the early scribe and the contemporary scholar. That is, he made his (as we make our) transcriptional choice on the basis not only of what he expected, but what also for him seemed to make the most sense of the sentence. Finally, then, it is the position baldly stated by Moo, and presupposed by most commentators, that needs to examined—that the context favours the genitive. In other words, the secondary text is to be favoured primarily on intrinsic grounds.

Intrinsic Probability—the Mind of Paul That leads then to the question of intrinsic probability (what Paul is assumed most likely to have written in this context), which ultimately lies behind the fact that the majority of scholars have preferred the secondary reading as the original. That is, this choice for the genitive is made primarily on intrinsic grounds pure and simple (with a side word regarding the external evidence as rather evenly balanced thrown in as support), not on the weight of the external evidence and with little or no regard at all for transcriptional probability in terms of known scribal habits. So let us turn briefly to the argument of verses 9–11 and see whether the original text—the accusative—does not in fact make more sense than its secondary counterpart, which all agree does make perfectly good sense in the context. But the fact is that one can make good sense out of most of the deliberate changes that occur in the scribal tradition; and to argue that this reading is demanded by the context is

152

Fee

simply not true. Textual decisions must finally be made of sterner stuff. To get at the text, then, I offer the structural analysis of Rom 8:9–11 from God’s Empowering Presence,17 as a way of walking through the argument of the paragraph: 9

But you are

[A] [B] [B]

[A]

not in the flesh but in the Spirit, since indeed the Spirit of God

dwells in you

Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person is not of him [Christ] 10 But if Christ is in you [and he is by his Spirit], [C] that means: μέν the body = death because of sin, [D] δέ the Spirit = life because of righteousness. 11

Now if

the Spirit of him [God] who raised Jesus… dwells in you, then he [God] (who raised Christ Jesus from the dead) [C/D] will also give life to your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit who dwells in you.

Without going into the many details that make this argument such a powerful one,18 I simply point out that the logic of the paragraph goes like this: 1) In contrast to those who live κατὰ σάρκα, the Spirit of God (who is also the Spirit of Christ) dwells in you (v. 9). 2) This means (v. 10) that, even though the physical body is subject to death because of sin, the presence of the lifegiving Spirit serves as the guarantor of eschatological resurrection—because of the righteousness that Christ has provided (thus reflecting what has been argued in ch. 6). 3) How so (v. 11)? Because the same God who raised Christ will someday raise you, which is guaranteed by the eschatological Spirit who currently dwells in you (thus picking up the point in verse 10).

A careful analysis of the paragraph as a whole suggests that the 17 Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 544. 18 For those details, see ibid., 542–54.

Spirit and resurrection in paul

153

emphasis lies on both present and future reality for believers (eschatological life, despite bodies that are subject to death), certified by the reality of the indwelling Spirit. This suggests, then, that the point in context lies with the two “D” clauses (at the end of vv. 10 and 11), which express the result of the reality of the indwelling Spirit—in light of the preceding argument in verses 1–8. First (v. 10), since the Spirit of God is none other than the Spirit of Christ, this means that “life” for believers is the direct result of the “righteousness” effected by the same Christ whose Spirit now indwells the believer. Second (v. 11), since the indwelling Spirit is none other than the Spirit of the God who raised Christ from the dead, then the Spirit is also God’s surety in the life of the believer that, just as Christ was raised, so too their “mortal” bodies are going to be made to live again through resurrection, thus echoing the language of Ezek 37. The point of the passage, therefore, is not on the indwelling Spirit’s agency of the future bodily resurrection of believers, but on the indwelling Spirit as guarantor of the same. And it is precisely this point that is picked up again in verse 23, where the Spirit, who is the evidence of our “adoption as children” (vv. 15–16) is by means of the imagery of “firstfruits” also the guarantor of future “adoption,” namely “the redemption of the body.” Not only so, but this understanding, in stark contrast to διὰ with the genitive, is quite in keeping with Paul’s understanding of the Spirit that emerges elsewhere in his letters: namely, with the metaphor of the Spirit as God’s ἀρραβών, God’s downpayment, as it were. In all three occurrences (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14) the metaphor functions precisely as the straight prose of this passage does: that the Spirit is both evidence of present reality and guarantee of the future. Everything in the passage, therefore, excludes the kind of exegesis found in those interpreters who, on the basis of reading the wrong text as original, argue that the “logical corollary” of the Spirit as the agent of our future resurrection is that Jesus was also raised by the Spirit. Whether that would even be true if the secondary text were original is moot; but when such an idea is predicated on a very insecure textual choice at best, it seems to me that such pronouncements about the Spirit’s role in resurrection should be abandoned altogether—since in the end they seem based on prior theological commitments, not on any clear or certain meaning of Paul’s own texts.

The Life of Porphyry: Clarifying the Relationship of the Greek and Georgian Versions through the Study of New Testament Citations1 J. W. Childers, Abilene Christian University The turn of the 5th century CE has attracted much attention from those seeking to understand the Late Antique shift from a pagan Roman empire to Christian Byzantium. The synthesis of dynamic forces in play during this pivotal era is nowhere more evident than in the rise of a new form of leadership in the empire: the monk-bishop. However, only a handful of biographical texts survive from the period to illumine our understanding of the development of this influential class in late antique society. Alongside the Lives of Ambrose of Milan (†397), Martin of Tours (†c.397), Epiphanius of Salamis (†403), and Augustine of Hippo (†430) is the Life of Porphyry of Gaza, a remarkable text that provides a vivid account of the Christianization of Gaza prior to Porphyry’s death in 420.2 The Greek Life of Porphyry3 recounts the story of how the 1 This essay was presented in an earlier version at the annual meeting of the North American Patristics Society in Chicago on 3 June 2005. 2 See Claudia Rapp, “The Elite Status of Bishops in Late Antiquity in Ecclesiastical, Spiritual, and Social Contexts,” Arethusa 33 (2000): 379–99 . 3 Greek edition with French translation by Henri Grégoire and M.-A. Kugener, Marc le Diacre, Vie de Porphyre, Évêque de Gaza (Paris: Société d’édition Les Belles Lettres, 1930). Partial translation, introduction, and

154

Porphyry of Gaza—Greek and Georgian

155

predominantly pagan city of Gaza, famed for its wondrous temple to the local ba‘al Marnas,4 began to be transformed at a dizzying pace into a Christian city after Porphyry was appointed bishop in 395. Porphyry took charge of a small band of Christians in Gaza, some 280 souls (Life of Porphyry 19). By the time of Porphyry’s death in 420, the pagan temples had been closed and the Marneion dismantled—due in part to the zealous efforts of the bishop and in part to the forceful imperial patronage of Eudoxia and Arcadius. The Christian community had steadily grown and the colossal edifice that Porphyry constructed on the site of the old Marneion stood as witness to the triumph of Christ over Marnas. Standard histories have relied heavily upon the Life due to its rich historical, social, political, and ecclesial information.5 Various specialized studies also draw upon it—including investigations of Theodosian court intrigue, Late Antique income levels,6 the desacralization of holy spaces, and the Christianization of Roman society.7 Yet the text presents a number of issues that have led some to doubt its historical value. For instance, the name of Porphyry as bishop of Gaza turns up nowhere else.8 The marvellous church building—dubbed the Eudoxiana annotation in Rapp, “Mark the Deacon, Life of St. Porphyry of Gaza,” in Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology (ed. Thomas Head; Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 1942; New York: Garland, 2000; repr., New York: Routledge, 2001), 53–75. The textual base and translation of G. F. Hill is inadequate (Marcus Diaconus: The Life of Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza [Oxford: Clarendon, 1913; repr., Willits, California: Eastern Orthodox Books, 1975]. 4 Frank R. Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370–529 (2d ed.; Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 115; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1:188–204; Gerard Mussies, “Marnas God of Gaza,” ANRW 18.4:2412–57. 5 E.g. J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (New York: Dover, 1958), 1:142–48; A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284–602 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964), 1:344–46, 408, 568. 6 See Cyril Mango, Byzantium. The Empire of the New Rome (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980), 40. 7 Recent treatments of late antique Christianization have refocused interest on the Life—e.g. Averil Cameron, The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity AD 395–600 (London: Routledge, 1993), 58, 70, 171; Frank R. Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:186–245; and Raymond van Dam, “From Paganism to Christianity at Late Antique Gaza,” Viator 16 (1985), 5. 8 Two bishops having that name were present at the Synod of Diospolis in 415 and it is possible that one of them is our Porphyry, though the Life

156

childers

in Chapter 92—is otherwise unknown as such. Furthermore, the text purports to have been written by an eyewitness—Mark the Deacon, ostensibly Porphyry’s assistant and companion of some years. Yet certain anachronisms occur in the text, most famously the appearance of Praylius as bishop of Jerusalem in 392, when he is known to have been bishop only from 417.9 Perhaps most troubling, the Greek text of the Life incorporates a long section of the Prologue from Theodoret’s Historia religiosa10 as its own introduction. Consequently, the present form of the Life cannot predate 444 (or 440),11 the year Theodoret composed his work, and is therefore not likely to be the work of Mark the Deacon. In view of the Life’s many problems, it is not surprising that it has been assessed as “un des plus curieux mais non des plus sûrs documents de l’histoire byzantine.”12 itself makes no mention of his participation. See Grégoire and Kugener, Vie de Porphyre, xlv; and especially Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:271–74, 276, who discusses other sources that may be referring to our bishop, though not by name, and who sees the Synod as important for understanding the Life’s purpose. 9 G. Mussies, “Marnas,” 2456. 10 CPG, 6221; Entitled Philotheos historia by Theodoret and sometimes called, History of the Monks of Syria, due to its focus on ascetics living near Antioch. Editions—Pierre Canivet and Alice Leroy-Molinghen, Théodoret de Cyr. Histoire des moines de Syrie (SC 234, 257; Paris: Éditions du CERF, 1977–79); PG 82:1283–1496. English translation—R. M. Price, A History of the Monks of Syria by Theodoret of Cyrrhus (CSS 88; Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian, 1985). See notices in Quasten 3:550; and Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon. A Guide to the Literature and its Background (London: SCM, 1983), 50–56. 11 Canivet, Théodoret de Cyr. Histoire des moines de Syrie, 1.31; Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, 51; see Grégoire and Kugener, Vie de Porphyre, xxxvi–xxxvii, ciii–ix, 81–85; see especially their synoptic textual comparison, ciii–cxix; Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:279. Scholarship is divided as to whether the Historia religiosa is to be dated to the year 444 or 440 (Price, History of the Monks of Syria, xiv–xiv). 12 René Aigrain, L’hagiographie. Ses sources, ses méthodes, son histoire (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1953), 296. Ramsay MacMullen dismisses the Life in his study of Late Antique Christianization, using the term “fake” at least three times in the space of a few paragraphs—though he makes extensive use of it on the grounds that it should be considered a reliable guide to “the general way things happened in well-known and recurring situations,” Christianizing

Porphyry of Gaza—Greek and Georgian

157

A major development occurred as long ago as 1927, when western scholarship was alerted to the existence of an Old Georgian version of the Life,13 though this received no attention in the 1930 Greek edition of Grégoire and Kugener. This development has enriched (some would say muddled) the picture considerably, since the Georgian version is demonstrably based on an earlier (lost) Syriac version. The versions differ in various ways—e.g. the Georgian does not include the prologue cribbed from Theodoret. Whereas some have insisted that the Life was composed originally in Greek, others have taken the position that the Greek itself is based on an original Syriac version, now represented only by the Georgian. Arguments plausible and implausible have been advanced on both sides. Meanwhile, the debate regarding the Life’s significance as a witness to late antique Christianization remains hindered due to the absence of a clear settlement regarding the matter of the extant versions’ interrelationship. A survey of the arguments and evidence adduced so far will reveal their limitations in solving the problem of the versions’ interrelationship, permitting the resources and methods of New Testament textual criticism to supply insights that help resolve the long-standing problem of determining the interrelationship between the ancient Greek and Georgian versions of the Life of Porphyry.

The Georgian Text The Georgian Life in question occurs in a single 16th-century manuscript.14 The Georgian text is close in scope and content to the Greek the Roman Empire (A.D. 100–400) (New Haven: Yale, 1984), 86–87. 13 Paul Peeters edited the text in 1941, “La vie géorgienne de Saint Porphyre de Gaza,” AnBoll 59 (1941), 65. Peeters draws attention to the notice given by K. Kekelidze, in “Foreign Authors in Old Georgian Literature,” Bulletin of the University of Tbilissi (in Georgian) 8 (1927), 186. 14 Gelati 1, copied during the catholicosate of Evdemon I (1543–78) and preserved at the monastery at Gelati near Kutaisi in western Georgia. See the notice in P. Michael Tarchnishvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Studi e Testi 185; Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1955), 489. The manuscript is a menologion for February. The Life occurs on day 25 (folios 1–242). The title reads, “Life of the Holy Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza” (folios 192v–225v) and alongside the title, a hand that Peeters judged to be that of the copyist has written in the margin, “this is old” (9G9NJ9@=

158

childers

text (BHG 1570) that forms the basis of the Grégoire-Kugener edition, yet it differs in striking ways. For instance, as already noted, the Georgian text omits the prologue plagiarized from Theodoret’s Historia religiosa (Greek Life, Chapters 1–3) and it is somewhat more concise overall. Nearly every sentence exhibits significant variations from the Greek.15 The Georgian refers to the deity Marnas as Maron—or more often as Nonos—nowhere identifying him with Zeus as in the Greek (Chapters 19, 64), omitting the names of other local gods (Chapter 64) and some local saints as well (Chapter 20). For several key persons, the Georgian has significantly different proper name forms. References to Mani and Manicheism do not occur in an episode involving a certain teacher Julia(na), who is characterized in the Georgian as more of a pagan prophetess rather than a Manichean heretic as she is styled in the Greek (Chapters 85–91). The Georgian tends to be less specific with respect to chronology, e.g. it does not record the date of Porphyry’s death, whereas the Greek puts it in the year 420 CE (Chapter 103). Yet the Georgian includes Porphyry’s deathbed speech, a feature absent from the Greek. The Georgian is also less precise with respect to titles and administrative technical terms. The Georgian manuscript is late and when faced with parallel Georgian and Greek texts there is usually no doubt that the Georgian is secondary. But since in this case the Georgian was translated not from Greek but from Aramaic, presumably the Syriac dialect, it may bear a more ancient pedigree than one would presume at first glance.16 5FG). The note presumably is meant either to contrast the Life specifically with the manuscript’s preceding entry or to denote its antiquity more generally. Peeters understood it in the latter sense. 15 A comparison of the Georgian and Greek texts shows that the typical translation unit between the two texts is somewhere between sentence- and paragraph-length. The specific language by which the two texts convey much the same information is only “loosely” parallel. In this case, the type of dynamic equivalence they exhibit is consistent with the fact that a third, intermediary text is involved (i.e. the Syriac). 16 Of all the ancient Aramaic dialects, the most productive in the creation of Christian literature was Syriac, by far. However, it should be noted that the dialect spoken in ancient Gaza would more properly fit under the designation of Palestinian Aramaic, and that Palestinian Aramaic hagiographical texts did circulate (e.g. see Agnes Smith Lewis, The Forty Martyrs of the Sinai Desert and the Story of Eulogius. From a Palestinian Syriac and Arabic Palimpsest

Porphyry of Gaza—Greek and Georgian

159

The differences between the two versions have excited considerable controversy as to which one best represents the original Life.

The Syriac Source of the Georgian Text Peeters recognized that the Georgian was derived from a Syriac version in his 1941 edition of the Georgian text and his conclusions have been regularly affirmed. The Syriac source text manifests itself in numerous ways. For example, in many places awkward Georgian phrases are explicable on the grounds of the translator’s having had difficulty knowing precisely how best to render the notoriously vague Syriac particle, -ƒ (d-), or the particle ÊÜ (kad). In Chapter 6 a reference in the Georgian to “1400 dry drachmas”17 (8F5$:5B= EA9@=—drahkÖani qÖ meli) appears very strange indeed—unless one assumes that a translator encountered a form of the Syriac áãÏ (hÖmal), “to gather, collect,” in his source text, but did not understand it, so he produced a veritable transliteration18 rather than an accurate translation, one that would have yielded “store” or “collection” of drachmas.19 Much later in the Life, the narrator reports that the soldiers in Gaza, after overseeing the destruction of the pagan Marneion “received (A==;C) Constantinople” [HSem 9; Cambridge: University Press, 1912]). Nevertheless, in the absence of any evidence indicating that the source text underlying the Georgian was specifically Palestinian Aramaic, this study presumes a Syriac source and will normally designate it as such; as it happens, the relatively slight differences between the dialects have no bearing on the linguistic results of the study. Furthermore, the conclusions below regarding the text’s original language strongly suggest that Syriac is the most likely dialect for the version underlying the Georgian (see n. 85). 17 The Greek has 1400 “gold pieces” (χρυσοῦς). 18 Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,”108, n.1. 19 A similar problem may have occurred in Chapter 20, where the Georgian describes “rain… coming down like =CE5F=(ioqÖ ari).” The term =CE5F= is nonsense. Peeters (“La vie géorgienne,” 126, n.1) suggests that a scribe misread a Syriac original ~ăÝè (skārē), i.e. “cataracts” (see Karl Brockelmann, Lexikon syriacum, [2d ed.; Halle an der Sale: Max Niemeyer, 1928], 475) as the morphologically similar ~ăøÍØ (yuqārē) (“weights”) though it is hard to understand why the Georgian translator would transliterate the Syriac so as to produce a meaningless Georgian term, much less make no attempt to render the meaning of ~ăøÍØ sensibly in this context. Perhaps the translator did not understand the word and chose merely to transliterate it, as with áãÏ(hÖmal), EA9@=(qÖ meli) in Chapter 6.

160

childers

(Chapter 75), apparently due to a mistranslation of the Syriac áùü, a term than can mean “receive” but should have been understood here in its other sense—“set off for.”20 Whereas the Greek indicates that the Christians in Gaza—with the help of imperial soldiers—demolished the city’s pagan shrines over a period of 10 days (Chapter 66), the Georgian text indicates a period lasting twice as long—20 days. In Syriac ten=~ûéî (‘esrā) and 20=çØûéî (‘esrin); the difference between versions is best explained as a mistake resulting from the similarity between the two words in Syriac.21 In Chapter 22 the Greek makes reference to a certain “idolater” (εἰδωλολάτρης), yet the Georgian has the remarkable, “Armenian” (GCA9L=)—probably due to a misreading of the Syriac ½Ùâ˜~ (armāyā—“pagan”) as the morphologically similar, ½Ùæâ˜~ (armanāyā—“Armenian”).22 Another example occurs in Chapter 69, where in the Greek text Porphyry is described as having gathered “the pious clergy and the devout congregation.” The Georgian has him gathering, “all the children of the church,” evidently a Syriacism based on the phrase, ~šÊîKÚæÁ—literally, “the sons/children of the church,” but idiomatically “the people belonging to the assembly/church,” i.e. “the congregation.”23 Several instances involve proper names or titles. For example, near the end of the Life, the narrator records events involving a woman who in the Greek is given the name, “Salaphtha, which in Greek is translated, ‘Eirene,’” i.e. “Peace” (Chapter 98). The name given in the Greek, Salaphtha (Σαλαφθᾶ), appears to be a corruption of the Aramaic ~ÿãàü (šelamthā or possibly šalmthā), a feminine name form related 20 Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,” 187, n.1; see K. Brockelmann, Lexikon Syriacum, 798–99. 21 Mussies, “Marnas,” 2457. No such ambiguity exists between the Georgian forms of 10 (5H=—ati) and 20 (C7=—oci). A similar problem may have occurred in Chapter 12, where the Greek has “seven days” and the Georgian has “four days.” The similarity of the endings of the Syriac numerals four (½ïÁ˜~—arb‘ā) and seven (½ïÂü—šab‘ā) may account for the confusion between the Georgian and Greek here, as Peeters indicates (“La vie géorgienne,” 117, n.1), though it would be an unusual mistake for a Syriac copyist to make; perhaps the Georgian translator confused the words. 22 See ibid., 128, n.2. 23 See ibid., 183, n.1.

Porphyry of Gaza—Greek and Georgian

161

to the noun ½ãàü, šlāmā (“peace”), which the Georgian merely translates as “Peace” (AKJ=8C65), without the explanatory gloss—the Syriac source would not need such an explanation.24 Other examples could be adduced, but these suffice to substantiate the conclusion that the Georgian version of the Life of Porphyry was translated from a (lost) Syriac version.25 Therefore, in spite of the late age of the manuscript Gelati 1, the Georgian version of the Life of Porphyry within it must originally have been translated at a relatively early date.26 Georgian Christian literature felt the influence of Syriac literature mainly during the 4th–7th centuries,27 after which the influence of Syriac communities waned considerably due to the shifting confessional orientation of the Georgian church and the subsequent growth in the prestige of Greek literature and Byzantine culture in Georgian circles. The environment most conducive to Syriac-Georgian literary contacts was that of Syria and Palestine, where early centres of Syriac-speaking scholarship flourished and Georgian monastic centres were well established by the fifth century,28 at a time when contacts between Syriac and Georgian scholarship were at their peak, prior to the confessional redirection of the Georgian church29 and before the 24 See ibid., 80; 210, n.3. 25 Ibid., 69–72; Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:246– 57; Mussies, “Marnas,” 2457; van Dam, “From Paganism to Christianity,” 5, n.14; 14, n.56; Zeev Rubin, “Porphyrius of Gaza and the Conflict between Christianity and Paganism in Southern Palestine,” in Sharing the Sacred. Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land. First-Fifteenth Centuries CE (eds. Arieh Kofsky and Guy G. Stroumsa; Jerusalem: Izhak ben Zvi, 1998), 34, 65. 26 See Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,” 71–72. 27 See Tarchnishvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 26– 27. In addition to certain early apocryphal books and theological tractates (ibid., 338, 340, 389), some extant Georgian hagiographical texts are known to go back to Syriac originals (ibid., 392, 467). 28 The Georgians held two monasteries in Jerusalem itself by the fifth century. By the sixth and seventh centuries Georgian monks could be found in all the major monastic foundations of the region—Mar Saba, Chariton, and Sinai—and by the 9th century Georgian monks wielded considerable influence in Palestine. See ibid., 61–63; Gregory Peradze, “An Account of the Georgian Monks and Monasteries in Palestine as Revealed in the Writings of Non-Georgian Pilgrims,” Georgica 1.4–5 (1937), 181–84. 29 Although the Georgians joined the Armenians in condemning

162

childers

Muslim invasions.30 The Syriac must have found its way into Georgian prior to the 9th century, and quite probably by the 7th.

Relationship Between the Syriac and Greek Texts Both versions have a relatively early provenance but which best represents the original? Could the two texts have originated independently? No. They both purport to be the same Life, composed by Mark the Deacon; although they differ in significant ways their extensive similarities in structure and content prove that they are closely interrelated. So, was the Syriac translated from the Greek, or vice-versa? The texts themselves make no explicit claims and students of the text have staked out opposing positions, principally on the basis of ambiguous evidence and tendentious argumentation. For example, the Georgian version lacks the material plagiarized from Theodoret’s prologue, having a very brief introduction instead. Peeters proposed that this deficiency marks the Georgian as representing an earlier, uninterpolated form of the text.31 By contrast, the editors of the Greek text and—more recently—Frank R. Trombley contend that the interpolation of material from Theodoret indicates only that the extant Greek text represents a redaction of the essentially historical Urtext.32 Grégoire and Kugener were unaware of the Georgian version, but Trombley is well aware of it and in his view the prologue’s absence from the Georgian is simply a sign of that version’s defective character. Linguistic Realities For Trombley, signs of the Syriac-Georgian’s derivative nature abound.33 Chalcedon at the Council of Dvin (506), in 607 the Georgian church formally abandoned its prior affiliations with eastern non-Chalcedonian churches to ally itself theologically with Byzantium in affirming Chalcedon. See Childers, “Dvin, Synod of,” EEC 1:354. 30 Syrian influence was also felt within Georgia itself from an early time. The very popular hagiographical cycle, Lives of the Syrian Fathers shows that henophysite Syrian ascetic leaders were instrumental in the growth of Christian monasticism in Georgia by the late fifth century. 31 Cf. especially Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,” 74. Peeters believes that the work is a fiction in any case (ibid., 74–100). 32 Grégoire and Kugener, Vie de Porphyre, xxxvi–vii; Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:279. 33 He devotes an Appendix to the problem (Hellenic Religion and

Porphyry of Gaza—Greek and Georgian

163

The foundation of his arguments consists of certain preconceptions regarding what he calls “linguistic realities.”34 For instance, he cites evidence principally epigraphic to depict an environment so thoroughly Hellenized that the creation of originally Aramaic literature would be out of place. Both the Georgian and the Greek versions of the Life give Semitic names for some of the Christians in Gaza35—though they both give many Greek names as well. Trombley finds it difficult to believe that leaders in “so Hellenized a see” would have Semitic names,36 whereas Peeters predictably favours the Semitic name forms as original. Trombley misrepresents the “linguistic realities” of the situation. Dialects of Aramaic were being spoken throughout Palestine, including Gaza, dialects often described by classical sources as “Syriac.”37 The Life of Porphyry itself dramatically depicts an Aramaic-speaking Christian community in Gaza in an episode involving a child who becomes the vehicle for a revelation from God regarding the means by which the Christianization, 1:246–82). Unflattering descriptions like, “the Georgian text is all very stupid” reveal Trombley’s attitude towards the quality of the Georgian/Syriac text. His impassioned analysis repeatedly attributes discrepancies to the relative “imprecision” of Syriac and displays doubts that Georgian translators are capable of sophisticated and accurate translation (see ibid., 1:250, 252, n.36; 254). 34 Ibid., 1:247–52. 35 See ibid., 1:247–48; Carol A. M. Glucker, The City of Gaza in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (BAR International Series 325; Oxford: BAR, 1987), 50. On the paucity of semitic language inscriptions in and around Gaza, see idem., 115–56; Martin A. Meyer, History of the City of Gaza (Columbia University Oriental Studies; New York: Columbia University Press, 1907), 139–51. 36 Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:263. 37 See van Dam, “From Paganism to Christianity,” 7; Glucker, City of Gaza, 50, 98–99; Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:247–48, 251. Egeria encountered multilingual worship in Jerusalem during the period in question and described Christian communities in the region that knew only Syriac (Itinerarium Egeriae 47). One is reminded of John Chrysostom’s occasional references to Aramaic-speaking Christians in and around “highly Hellenized” Antioch (see Mart. 1; Stat. 19). His comments presume that Hellenistic Christians were liable to look down on their rustic Semitic neighbours; not only did such communities of Aramaic-speaking Christians exist alongside Hellenized communities in the late fourth and early fifth century, but social differentiation was liable to occur between the two groups.

164

childers

Christians should destroy the pagan Marneion. Both versions note that the authority of the child’s oracle was confirmed by the fact that he spoke the revelation in Greek, since he and his mother knew only Syriac (Chapters 66–68).38 The great number of early Saints’ Lives produced in Aramaic and the widespread distribution of Syriac literature in the fourth and fifth centuries show that Aramaic-speaking communities had a literary production—even in “Hellenized” areas.39 Nor should one presume that Greek always took pride of place. When Trombley says that “the process of translation in this period was, as it were, a largely one-way one”40—meaning Greek to Syriac—he misrepresents the situation. The influence of Syriac literature on Greek Christianity in this era should not be discounted.41 We must remember that “for the Christendom of Late Antiquity it was holy lives that most often transcended differences 38 See Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,” 70–71; Rubin, “Porphyrius of Gaza,” 49. 39 See Rubin, “Porphyrius of Gaza,” 39, n.26. 40 Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:250. 41 Within about a century of Porphyry’s time, Syriac had measurably become “a major second language of the Byzantine empire” (Susan Ashbrook Harvey, “Syriac Hagiography: An Emporium of Cultural Influences,” in Horizons in Semitic Studies [ed. J. H. Eaton; Birmingham: University of Birmingham, Dept. of Theology, 1980], 62). In addition to works of Ephrem (Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur [Bonn: A. Marcus and E. Webers, 1922], 32–36), notice should perhaps especially be taken of works parallel in genre to our Life, such as the Acts of the Persian Martyrs (ibid., 57). See also H. Delehaye, Les versions grecques des Actes des martyrs persans sous Sapor II (PO 2; 1905); O. Braun, Ausgewählte Akten persischer Märtyer (Kempten and Munich, 1915); Gernot Wiessner, Untersuchungen zur syrischen Literaturgeschichte I: Zur Märtyrüberliefrung aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II (AAWG 3/67; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967); Nina Pigulevskaja, “Syrischer Text und griechische Übersetzung der Märtyrakten der heiligen Tarbo,” in Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben. Festschrift für Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968 (eds. Ruth Stiehl and Hans Erich Stier; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1970), 2:96–100, and the Lives of saints like Abraham of Qidun and Alexis “the Man of God” (see Sebastian P. Brock and Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Holy Women of the Syrian Orient [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987], 28) and an undeterminable number of accounts underlying parts of the great cycles of monks’ lives (see H. Delehaye, Les origines du culte des martyrs [2nd ed.; SH 20; Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1933], especially chapter 5, on “L’Orient”).

Porphyry of Gaza—Greek and Georgian

165

of language, culture, and time,”42 and it is precisely in the area of hagiography—typically concerned with local celebrities—that we meet with the phenomenon of originally provincial tales and compositions circulating well beyond the geographical and cultural bounds of their beginnings.43 Trombley’s misgivings are unfounded. The “linguistic reality” is that a Christian community in fifth-century Gaza could have produced literature in Aramaic and it is presumptuous to think otherwise. Yet neither should the opposite presumption be made. After all, the text’s alleged author was a native Greek speaker. Even if the Christian community in Late Antique Gaza were principally Aramaic-speaking, this does not imply that the text of the Life would necessarily have been written in Aramaic originally.44 Trombley accuses Peeters of such presumptuous thinking. Impressed by the Semitic names in the Life and the episode involving the aforementioned boy, Peeters concluded that the Life presupposes an Aramaic milieu.45 Trombley denounces Peeters for having spun this observation into a “faulty axiom,” namely, that “any piece of literature arising from a partially Aramaic-speaking environment like Gaza must necessarily have been composed in ‘Syriac’…”46 The presentation of linguistic-cultural data on Late Antique Gaza and on the Christian translation phenomena of the period begs the question, only reinforcing the conclusion that both an originally Greek 42 Brock and Harvey, Holy Women of the Syrian Orient, 13. See Peeters, Le tréfonds oriental de l’hagiographie Byzantin (SH 26; Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1950), 175–81. 43 Irrefutable is Paul Peeters’ assertion: “dans l’hagiographie grecque… les traces d’influence syriaque sont nombreuses et certaines” (ibid., 175). 44 It should be noted that the target audience of the original Life need not have been the Semites of Gaza or even Gazans at all (see Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:248). 45 “La vie géorgienne,” 70–71. Peeters also detected an anti-Greek bias in the Georgian text, which he attributed to the sentiments of its original Semitic provenance. However, his conclusions are based largely on the Georgian’s tendency to identify the imperial soldiers as “Greeks” (71). However, the use of the term “Greeks” in these instances owes more to linguistic confusion than to any ethnic antagonism or rivalry (see Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:249–50; Rubin, “Porphyrius of Gaza,” 58–60). 46 Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:246.

166

childers

and an originally Aramaic composition are within the realm of plausibility. While Peeters may fall subject to Trombley’s criticism that he operates with a “faulty axiom,” Trombley displays the biased predilections that Peeters associates with “byzantinistes intransigeants.”47 It is necessary to go beyond speculation regarding “linguistic realities” to compare the versional evidence more carefully in the hope of discovering clues that will clarify the nature of their interrelationship. Discrepancies and Problematic Passages Even within a more careful comparison of the texts inconclusive evidence is plentiful. For instance, Trombley points to the occurrence of anachronistic terminology in the Georgian text. The Georgian refers to the bishop of Jerusalem as “patriarch,”48 whereas the Greek employs the terms, “bishop” (ἐπίσκοπος) and “priesthood” (ἱερωσύνης; Chapters 10, 12, 14). Since Jerusalem was not formally recognized as a patriarchate until the Council of Chalcedon (451), Trombley takes this as a clear indication of the Syriac text’s secondary quality.49 That the 47 Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,” 97. 48 -5MF=5?= (pÖatriaki) in Chapters 10, 14; but A5A5H AH5JF=G5 (mamat mtavrisa–“head/chief of the fathers”) in Chapter 12—possibly a translation of the parallel Syriac phrase, ~šÌKÁ~ þؘ (“head of the fathers”), used in Syriac for “patriarch,” before the Syriac loan word ½ÜûØûÓñ, íÙÜ- (patriyarka, -kis) came to be in common use as an ecclesiastical technical term. See Payne Smith, 2:3900. The same term is used as a title for John Chrysostom in Life of Porphyry 26–27. 49 Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:257; see also Mussies, “Marnas,” 2457. Even after Chalcedon, the term πατριάρχης may not have passed into common technical use until the time of the emperor Justinian I (524– 65), as recorded in Nov. 123.3 (see Ernest Honigmann, “Juvenal of Jerusalem,” DOP 5 [1950], 272–74). Whether the date of the official conciliar declaration regarding the patriarchal status of Jerusalem is sufficient to render the term anachronistic in this context is debatable—see Rubin, “Porphyrius of Gaza,” 47, n.41, who points out that bishops of Jerusalem had been making claims as to their privileged apostolic status for many years prior to Chalcedon, and therefore suggests that 451 is too late as a terminus post quem for the technical application of the term to the see of Jerusalem. Honigmann insists that the title became official only between 451 and about 475 (“Juvenal,” 275). Still, the Georgian uses the term in its technical sense and the term is absent from the Greek. Although prior to the fifth century the term “patriarch”

Porphyry of Gaza—Greek and Georgian

167

Georgian text here reflects relatively late editing is not unlikely; even so, such editing does not prove that the entire text is secondary in its origins. The variety of ways in which the Georgian identifies the bishop of Jerusalem—“patriarch” (Chapters 10, 14), “chief of the fathers” (Chapter 12), “archbishop” (AH5J5F96=G:C-CG=–mtavarebiskÖopÖosi, Chapter 12), indicates that the translator may have had some difficulty rendering what he found in his Syriac source in terms that would be understandable within the ecclesio-political situation of his own day.50 Even if the Georgian text shows signs of having been updated in this way, it does not require the conclusion that its Syriac source is secondary. The same may be said for another apparently anachronistic term, the nickname “Chrysostom,”51 which the Georgian applies to Bishop John of Constantinople numerous times but the Greek never uses.52 Here again, the Georgian exhibits a seemingly secondary feature, yet it may indicate no more than that some of the Georgian terminology underwent selective updating at the time of translation or later in the transmission process, without requiring that we draw any further conclusions about the overall quality of the text or its Syriac source. The anachronistic reference to Bishop Praylius (Πραΰλιος) provides a similar instance. The Georgian has 6CF=@=CG (Borilios, Chapters 10, 12). Peeters explains that a Syriac scribe or Georgian translator misread -Á (b-) for -ø (q-) in the name ‘ÍàؘÍø (Qurillos), i.e. Cyril,53 thereby producing ‘ÍàؘÍÁ, with the eventual result that a Greek translator erroneously read Praylius instead of the original Cyril. Mussies correctly points out that the error could have occurred in the other occurs generally as an honorific title for venerable bishops, apart from its later technical usage designating the pre-eminent ecclesiastical dignities (ibid., 272), the Georgian text implies the technical sense of the term. 50 It should be noted that the Georgian translator may have read “patriarch” in his Syriac source text, since Chapter 12 has A5A5HAH5JF=G5 (mamat mtavrisa–“head/chief of the fathers”), indicative perhaps of the source text ~šÌKÁ~þؘ (“head of the fathers”); see n. 48. 51 Georgian, C?FC-=F=(okropÖiri–“goldenmouth”). 52 Trombley observes that the first certifiable use of this nickname occurs in Sozomen’s Historia ecclesiastica, which only began circulating decades after the events recorded in the Life (Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:256). 53 See Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,” 81; Rubin, “Porphyrius of Gaza,” 50–51.

168

childers

direction.54 As it happens, positing Cyril as the original name only creates a different anachronism.55 Another instance involves the name Salaphtha (Σαλαφθᾶ), ostensibly a corruption of the Aramaic ~ÿãàü (šelamthā or possibly šalmthā), mentioned above. A transliteration and explanatory gloss occur in the Greek, but a simple translation occurs in the Georgian AKJ= 8C65(“Peace”). Apart from noting that the Georgian here betrays its Aramaic source, Peeters also contends that the corrupt spelling in the Greek text indicates a misunderstanding of the Aramaic name and is therefore evidence that the Greek text derives from an Aramaic original.56 Yet it is not implausible to suppose that a Greek author would choose to explain the Aramaic name to his Greek audience, particularly since the meaning of the girl’s name suited the context of the narrative so well—in which case a Greek original composition could be affirmed. Either is possible in this instance.57 Another class of evidence adduced against the theory of Syriac priority involves problematic passages, for which Trombley declares 54 See Mussies, “Marnas,” 2456–57. 55 Cyril was bishop c.350–86, thereby posing a similar chronological problem, one that Peeters acknowledges but somehow finds more tolerable (see “La vie géorgienne,” 81). Yet even this difficulty is tempered some if the Greek text-based calculations are not made the starting point. Rubin contends the Georgian indicates that Cyril ordained Porphyry as priest, presumably in 386, and that the intervening years prior to his installation as bishop of Gaza are glossed over as “many days” in the Georgian (Chapter 11) in an effort to downplay the lengthy conflict over the succession of the episcopal see (“Porphyrius of Gaza,” 50–51)—though it is hard to see how the narrator could convincingly describe a period of at least six years (i.e. from some point during Porphyry’s priesthood in Jerusalem until his ordination as bishop in 395) merely as “many days.” 56 Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,” 80, 210, n.3; cf. Grégoire and Kugener, Vie de Porphyre, 141 for various ways to explain the corruption as it occurs in the Greek. 57 A similar occurrence is in Chapter 102, where the Greek has, “deaconess Manaris, in Greek translated Photeine”, i.e. Φωτεινή (“shining”)—cf. ~˜Ìæâ (manharā), “enlightening, shining.” The Georgian has only the name DCM=BC (PotÖino), without the gloss. Peeters and Rubin take this as evidence of a Syriac original, whereas Mussies suggests opposite. Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,” 98; Rubin, “Porphyrius of Gaza,” 41, n.29; Mussies, “Marnas,” 2457.

Porphyry of Gaza—Greek and Georgian

169

that “the Georgian text is quite corrupt… and cannot be original.”58 For instance, in Chapter 59 the Greek reports, “as we entered the city at the place called τετράμφοδον, a statue of marble stood, which they said was Aphrodite.” The Georgian has, “there was a certain image of marble standing there upon four pillars….” The italicized phrase is best understood as the result of the addition of the letter nun before a final aleph K K to create the Syriac ½åÍÓè~ (estūnē–“pillars”), instead of ~ÍÓè~ (estwē).59 The former Syriac term derives from στῦλος, whereas the latter K term (~ÍÓè~ ) derives from the word στοὰ and in this context yields a sense more nearly synonymous with that of the Greek τετράμφοδον— an unusual word that must approximate τετράπυλον, a sort of four-way crossroads.60 Trombley insists that “the Greek could not have possibly have [sic] arisen from the hypothetical Syriac version,”61 but his categorical assertion is unwarranted. The existing Georgian text may simply be the result of an inner-Syriac scribal phenomenon or a mistaken reading on the part of the Georgian translator.62 It says nothing conclusive about the priority of the Greek version. Trombley marshals a few other such examples,63 but in every case the allegedly awkward 58 Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:252. 59 In Georgian, CHLH5GI9HH5N985. 60 Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,” 173, n.2; Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:252. 61 Ibid. 62 See Rubin “Porphyrius of Gaza,” 40, n.27. Furthermore, the Georgian text pictures an image on four pillars, not the “archaeological impossibility” of a “four-footed Aphrodite,” as Trombley’s exaggerated criticisms indicate. See Peeters, “La vie géorgienne,” p.173, n.2; Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:252–3. 63 E.g. in the same context (Chapter 59) the Greek introduces the aforementioned episode by reporting that Porphyry’s party encountered a shrine to Aphrodite “as we came into the city,” yet the Georgian has, “we arrived at the place of the shrine of Maron” (58;=@G5A5GG5A5FC5BG5). The Georgian uses the term G5A5FC5B=(samaroani), i.e. “place (shrine) of Maron.” Trombley suggests that an original Syriac ~ÿæØÊãß (“[in]to the city”), corresponding to the Greek εἰς τὴν πόλιν (“into the city”), was misread as ~ÿÙåûãß (“to the [place] of Maron”), when “the point was evidently misplaced on the Syriac letter dalath, giving resh instead, and the yudh and nun were transposed” (Hellenic Religion and Christianization, 1:253). The explanation is reasonable and would account for the odd discrepancy. Yet contra Trombley’s interpretation,

170

childers

or unusual Georgian text may simply be the result of scribal mishap or translation error.64 They say nothing conclusive about the priority of the Greek version. An Inconclusive Debate The tangled problem of the interrelationship between the Syriac and Greek versions of the Life of Porphyry has elicited strong assertions but no clear resolution. Advocates of both Syriac priority (Peeters, Rubin) and Greek priority (Trombley, Mussies) have accumulated evidence that is at least suggestive, but tendentious judgments abound. The plausibility of both theories remains secure, but until now no study has yielded a high degree of certainty as to which theory provides the most satisfactory explanation of the evidence. What is wanting is a decisive indication that the Georgian presumes the Greek or the Greek presumes the Georgian, establishing a clear direction of influence so that the rest of the evidence may be more soundly interpreted.

Back to the Beginning—Theodoret’s Prologue In order to unravel the problem, it is necessary to reconsider the Greek Life’s prologue, cribbed from Theodoret (see above). The introduction to the Grégoire-Kugener edition provides a synoptic tabular comparison between the Greek Theodoret and the Greek Life of Porphyry, demonstrating conclusively that the latter borrows extensively from the former, especially in Chapter 1. Chapters 2–3 also have significant passages that display close reliance. By contrast, the Georgian prologue omits the borrowed material constituting the Greek Life of Porphyry 1– 3, presenting instead a very brief introduction to the Life, one showing no specific reliance on Theodoret but some general parallels with the contents of the Greek Life’s introduction. The absence of the prologue material from the Georgian version enabled Peeters to speculate that the Vorlage of the Georgian did not know a version of the Life containing the Theodoret prologue. Yet it is also possible that the extensive prologue had been present and that at some point in the translation or this instance says nothing to the priority of the Greek over the Georgian/ Syriac. That the opening lines of Chapter 59 in the Georgian text have become quite confused is indisputable, but the errors are of an inner-Syriac scribal sort, or perhaps were introduced by the Georgian translator. 64 See Rubin, “Porphyrius of Gaza,” 40, n.27.

Porphyry of Gaza—Greek and Georgian

171

transmission history underlying the extant Georgian (or Syriac) text it was intentionally omitted and a condensed alternative introduction set in its place. The latter proposal would seem unnecessarily complicated if it were not the case that the Georgian does indeed exhibit clear reliance on Theodoret via the Greek text of the Life of Porphyry elsewhere in the Life, a fact that has hitherto gone unnoticed but emerges into the light when attention is given to the Life’s biblical citations. The crucial citation does not occur in the prologue itself. Grégoire and Kugener point to scattered contexts beyond the prologue of Chapters 1–3 where they detect further evidence that the Greek Life draws on Theodoret—specifically, in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 10, 80, and 81.65 This is a fact that students of the Georgian text seem to have neglected. Some of these instances consist of only a few lines, and in most of the cases the proposed connections amount to nothing more than distant verbal echoes or similarity in narrative, without exhibiting the kind of close verbal correspondences characterizing the parallels that occur in the notorious prologue. The wording is dissimilar enough to offer no hope of determining whether in these contexts the Georgian drew on a source that itself had incorporated material from Theodoret—except in one passage. In Life of Porphyry 6 one instance of verbal correspondence exhibits a clear interrelationship between Theodoret, the Greek Life and the Georgian Life. A comparison of the passages follows: Theodoret, Historia religiosa, 12.766

Λίαν αὐτὸν ἠνία καὶ ἔδακνε τὸ διαμεῖναι τὴν περιουσίαν καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὸν εὐαγγελικὸν διαπραθῆναί τε καὶ διανεμηθῆναι νόμον. Αἴτιον δὲ τούτου ἦν τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡλικίας τὸ ἄωρον. He was very tormented and distressed at still having possessions and not having both67 sold and distributed according to the gospel law. And the reason for this was the unseasonable age of his brothers. Greek Life of Porphyry 668

Τοῦτο δὲ μόνον αὐτὸν ἐλυπεῖ καὶ ἔδακνεν τὸ διαμεῖναι τὴν περιουσίαν καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὸν εὐαγγελικὸν λόγον διαπραθῆναί καὶ διανεμηθῆναι 65 Grégoire and Kugener, Vie de Porphyre, cvii–ix. 66 The passage is in the cycle on the life of Zeno (Canivet, Théodoret de Cyr. Histoire des moines de Syrie, 1:470, lines 2–5). 67 Manuscript C, from Mt. Athos, omits τε (“both”). 68 Grégoire and Kugener, Vie de Porphyre, cviii, 6.

172

childers τοῖς πτωχοῖς. Αἴτιον δὲ τούτου τοῦ ἐμποδισμοῦ γέγονεν τὸ εἶναι τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ παῖδας τυγχάνοντας, ἡνίκα ἐξεδήμησεν τῆς ἰδίας πατρίδος. But only this tormented and distressed him—still having possessions and not having sold and distributed to the poor according to the gospel saying. And the reason for this was that his brothers happened to have been children when he departed from his own country. Georgian Life of Porphyry 669 9G99FH=LC@CNFIBJ5,5?IB85F5A9HI5F5;5AC9%CB5"= @=A5AI@=G5;5BHiG=G5F5H5A75;5B9;C=;=B96=G596FHiG =G5 J=H5F75 "9F=@ 5FG J=H5FA98 `;5BE=89 ACB5;96= K9B= 85;5BIE5J;@5L5:H5a1853F5A9HI-=FJ9@C89G=;=;5ACJ= 8C85G5L@=G5;5BA5A=G5HiG=G5=EJB9G>A5B=A=GB=A7=F985