Earlier this year, I wrote about
two important, shorter readings in the Byzantine text in 1 John 2.23; 3.1. I suggested that they were important because they both look to be simple omissions by parablepsis and so secondary readings. That said, I find it impossible to believe that the majority of manuscripts
all independently agree in these omissions, which led me to conclude that
... in some cases, the Byzantine text goes back to a single exemplar that is not the autograph and not in agreement with our earliest extant Greek witnesses. These two cases also illustrate well the reality that no single text-type or manuscript has a corner on the original text all the time. In other words, why I’m a reasoned eclectic.
This past week I came across a similar case in John 19.3. Here is the text of vv. 2–3 in NA28
2 καὶ οἱ στρατιῶται πλέξαντες στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλῇ καὶ ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν περιέβαλον αὐτὸν 3 καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἔλεγον· χαῖρε ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων· καὶ ἐδίδοσαν αὐτῷ ῥαπίσματα.
2 And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and clothed him in a purple robe. 3 And they were coming to him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and struck him with their hands.
The evidence from the NA28 apparatus is:
- — A Ds K Γ Δ Ψ ƒ1 892s. 1241. 1424 𝔐 f q syp
- καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν 𝔓66.90 ℵ B L N W Θ ƒ13 33. 565. 579. 700. ℓ 844 lat syh co
Unlike in the 1 John examples, here there is early support for the majority reading (A f q sy
p). But like those cases, the obvious explanation for the shorter reading is still omission caused by parablepsis (involving αὐτόν). The significance, again, is that we have here a shorter reading in the majority of manuscripts that goes back earlier but is still not likely to be original. And so, with apologies to
MAR, it is yet one more reason why I am not a Byzantine prioritist.
Earlier this year, I wrote about two important, shorter readings in the Byzantine text in 1 John 2.23; 3.1. I suggested that they were important because they both look to be simple omissions by parablepsis and so secondary readings. That said, I find it impossible to believe that the majority of manuscripts all independently agree in these omissions, which led me to conclude that
If you never accept a reading which can be explained by parablepsis, at least your position is consistent. I suspect your practice is otherwise, however, in which case your appeal in such cases to factors other than possible parablepsis ought to permit others at least to make a case that factors other than possible parablepsis are key in these passages. (Last time you and I just went in circles, so I probably won't subject you to further comments here. I say that respectfully, in case that's not clear. You're welcome for saving you time! ;-)
ReplyDeleteSure, I’m happy to accept better alternate explanations. I noticed you didn ’t offer one though. Do you have one? If not, I see parablepsis as a good one.
DeleteThe Vulgate has the longer reading, as does Wycliff and the Douay. The 1569 Spanish "Bear" BIble has the longer reading in brackets.
ReplyDeletePace Peter Gurry...
ReplyDeleteWhile one theoretically could claim a single later Byzantine archetype when dealing with a short book such as 1Jn that possesses lesser MS support, in which a particular phrasing may have been omitted through various forms of haplography (including homoioteleuton, homoioarcton, and homoiomeson) -- the same becomes far less likely for a short phrase in a major gospel like John, where the more regular liturgical reading of such would offer the mass of later Byzantine scribes ample opportunity for correction of any minor oversight among those MSS. Yet such simply did not occur. Rather, in Jn 19.3 as well as 1Jn 2.23b and 3.1, I suspect a scribal gloss, improvement, or smoothing of expression to be the proximate cause for each of those longer readings.
What has to be asked, however, is whether a dual standard exists, wherein Byzantine shorter readings that can be blamed on various forms of haplography seem regularly to be presumed; but when the same could be said for various shorter (predominantly Alexandrian) critical text readings, the Byzantine longer reading tends to be chalked up as a "typical scribal expansion". One need only compare, e.g., Rom 9.28; 14.6, 21; 15.29; 1Cor 10.28; Eph 5.30; Php 3.16; 1Tim 6.5; Heb 7.21; 8.12; Jas 4.4; 1Pet 4.14; 2Pet 3.10 [εν νυκτι]; Jude 1.25 [σοφω]; etc. The sword should cut both ways in such cases, assuming internal criteria to be a major (if not determining) factor.
In reality the issue from the Byzantine-priority perspective is not primarily a matter of fluctuating claims regarding internal evidence, but of the actual transmissional data involving MS copying and perpetuation, particularly with anticipated error-correction or lack of such being an important factor. As noted, Byzantine-priority is primarily externally and transmissionally based in regard to its theory and method, even if internal considerations might be urged in regard to any particular variant unit. And of course, this is part of the reason why I remain a Byzantine-prioritist as opposed to being a reasoned eclectic.
MAR: “...but when the same could be said for various shorter (predominantly Alexandrian) critical text readings, the Byzantine longer reading tends to be chalked up as a ‘typical scribal expansion’.”
DeletePerhaps that applies to others, but I am on record defending a number of longer Byzantine readings for precisely this reason (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here). Though I can’t say I’ve worked through all the ones you list here.
MAR: “As noted, Byzantine-priority is primarily externally and transmissionally based in regard to its theory and method, even if internal considerations might be urged in regard to any particular variant unit.”
I would go further and say that internal evidence is logically superfluous in dealing with most variants from the Byz priority position. But we have had that conversation many a time.
MAR: "While one theoretically could claim a single later Byzantine archetype when dealing with a short book such as 1Jn that possesses lesser MS support, in which a particular phrasing may have been omitted through various forms of haplography (including homoioteleuton, homoioarcton, and homoiomeson) -- the same becomes far less likely for a short phrase in a major gospel like John, where the more regular liturgical reading of such would offer the mass of later Byzantine scribes ample opportunity for correction of any minor oversight among those MSS. Yet such simply did not occur."
DeleteBut what they would have corrected their text toward would be whatever text they prefer as the correct one, which according to Gurry's explanation would still be that single exemplar of the Byzantine text.
MAR: "Rather, in Jn 19.3 as well as 1Jn 2.23b and 3.1, I suspect a scribal gloss, improvement, or smoothing of expression to be the proximate cause for each of those longer readings."
In the case of John 19:3, it seems unlikely for the same scribal gloss to find its way into such an array of witnesses as those presented for the longer reading.
Rowe: But what they would have corrected their text toward would be whatever text they prefer as the correct one, which according to Gurry's explanation would still be that single exemplar of the Byzantine text.
DeleteYet the usual position taken is that the Byzantine scribes preferred expansionary and fuller readings rather than abridgements. And again, it seems to beg the question by assuming a single post-autographic exemplar for the Byzantine Textform when that supposedly "defective" exemplar somehow becomes the (uncorrected) archetype for the mass of later descendants.
Rowe: In the case of John 19:3, it seems unlikely for the same scribal gloss to find its way into such an array of witnesses as those presented for the longer reading.
Why not? It is a quite logical explanatory reading, using an expression that has Johannine precedent (Jn 4.30; cf. Jn 1.29, 47; 3.26; 6.5; 8.2; 11.29); it thus could readily be inserted via attraction to similar phraseology known from elsewhere in John (also, Mt 27.29 with "kneeling before him" may also have influenced a clarifying insertion noting an approach in Jn).
As for the "array of witnesses", I see the Greek MSS support there as reflective of an Alexandrian-Caesarean alignment, itself going back to a common archetype, a factor that would parallel similar archetypal claims regarding the Byzantine group.
Your last point, Prof. Robinson, about the common archetype is an intriguing one. In my opinion, a strong case for a Byzantine priority position would need to do more than I have seen done to show the existence of such an archetype that would be later than the autograph. I agree that it would parallel similar claims about an archetype for the Byzantine group. Just as those who reject Byzantine priority have the lingering question of how, if unoriginal, the Byzantine text came about, so also advocates of Byzantine priority may need to explain the common archetype of what you have called this Alexandrian-Caesarean alignment.
DeleteThe mystery of the origin of the Byzantine text might be yet unsolved, but at least the available evidence gives us a nice amount of time between the autographs and the earliest strongly Byzantine witnesses that would have to have descended from that archetype.
On the other hand, explaining when and where your postulated archetype of what you've called an Alexandrian-Caesarean alignment existed, and how its influence spread to the array of witnesses listed for the longer reading of John 19:3, seems like more of a challenge to me. At the very least, this archetype would have to have been quite early and influential in a diverse swath of the Church at a time in Christian history when I'm not sure that any means existed of bringing about textual uniformity, apart from the natural uniformity that comes from common descent from the original text.
And then, given such an early and influential text, I would like to learn more about just what it might have looked like. I suspect that the best reconstruction one could make for it would have to utilize the various witnesses for it eclectically, and might look rather like the NA text.
MAR: "It is a quite logical explanatory reading, using an expression that has Johannine precedent (Jn 4.30; cf. Jn 1.29, 47; 3.26; 6.5; 8.2; 11.29); it thus could readily be inserted via attraction to similar phraseology known from elsewhere in John"
It's not that it couldn't possibly be a scribal gloss. It just seems to me more difficult to accept that explanation than the alternative of the longer reading being original.
I personally don't see the longer reading here as being very explanatory of anything that, in its absence, would elicit such an explanation.
The fact that it reflects Johannine style only points more in favor of its being authentic and against its being a later scribal gloss. But that point also raises an interesting question that I vaguely recall coming up in this blog before, and there may be some published work on it (so if anyone knows of any, please chime in). What do we know about scribal glosses that imitate the styles of the works to which they're added? How often and how successfully did scribes do that?
The reading may have occured independently several times occasioned by parablepsis, so the expression ”goes back earlier” might be qualified.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it did. I guess I should say it is attested earlier.
DeleteYes
DeleteEven assuming a number of various "independent" instances of parablepsis, it still would be unlikely that such would somehow overwhelm the bulk of later transmissional history without numerous attempts to correct such an error among those later MSS.
Delete