We have come to the third and concluding part of Elizabeth Schrader’s guest post concerning the presence or absence of Martha and Mary in John 11:1–12:2. The previous two parts are here and here. I am glad that I did not have to delete any comments to the previous part, and I look forward to following the final round.THE ONE-SISTER TEXTFORM IN JOHN 11
Some have suggested that I am collecting many various phenomena and positing one grand theory for basically anything aberrant I have found in John 11. For those who have gotten this impression of my work, I hope they might consider examining the cogent one-sister text form of John 11:1-5, which can be reconstructed using real readings found in just three weighty manuscripts (A*, P66*, and VL 6):1 There was a certain sick man, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary his sister.I posit that this text form (found on page 381 of my Harvard Theological Review article, and justified by the analysis in the article’s preceding pages) may be both a plausible and defensible recovery of five verses of John 11, and is potentially representative of the “initial text.” I believe that all of the phenomena discussed in the previous post can be explained by an interpolation of Martha to the one-sister text form above (and its natural continuation). Although our tendency as a text-critical guild is sometimes to apply more and more complicated methodologies, none of us doubt that all manuscripts of John trace back to the initial circulating text. Thus it is not impossible that different portions of the initial text could have been preserved in different corners of the textual tradition. Since a coherent one-sister text form of considerable length can already be reconstructed (which lessens the likelihood of the variants’ randomness), I believe it is worthwhile to simply begin thinking through the exegetical implications of a “Lazarus and Mary” version of John 11-12, and any potential objections that might have arisen to such a text in antiquity.
2 Now this was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.
3 Therefore Mary sent to him, saying, “Lord, behold, the one you love is sick.”
4 But when Jesus heard he said to her, “The sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son may be glorified through it.”
5 Now Jesus loved Lazarus and his sister.
Of course this does not mean that we should overlook the information that sophisticated methodologies can provide. The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method will hopefully shed additional light on the problems in John 11. I suggest that those working with the CBGM consider looking not just at relationships between individual variation units, but also at how the five problematic criteria I have isolated (see post #1) show up in related witnesses. As one particularly clear example, 157, 1344, 579, and 2680 are all closely related genealogically overall in John. However, these witnesses might variously display any of the five criteria that suggest Martha’s absence: 157 drops “Martha” in John 11:1 (Criterion 1), 1344 changes “Maria” to “Martha” in John 11:20 (Criterion 2), 579 uses two unexpected singular verbs and one unexpected singular pronoun at 11:3, 12:2, and 11:39 (Criterion 4), while 2680 simultaneously lists Mary first in John 11:5, omits Martha’s name completely from the same verse, and uses a singular pronoun at 11:19 (Criteria 1, 3, 4, and 5). Thus when we use the CBGM to look at this problem in John 11, let us note when several witnesses in the same genealogical group display problematic criteria in different ways. If a high concentration of different Maria/Martha problems occur in related witnesses, this could suggest that the phenomena originate with a one-sister text form, rather than that the phenomena are random scribal errors occurring independently of one another.
My hope is that the increased interest in this topic will lead to additional research on all of the abovementioned topics, so we can better understand the various textual phenomena appearing in the Lazarus story. I look forward to engaging with the responses of my colleagues.
Thanks for your interesting proposal, Elizabeth. If you are busy with classes, no hurry.
ReplyDeletea)You commented on Sept. 2: "The main topic under consideration is the *authorial intention of the Fourth Evangelist.* I am suggesting that it was the intention of the Fourth Evangelist to imply that Lazarus' sister Mary was Mary Magdalene - and that she was both the Christological confessor and the anointer."
If the Fourth Evangelist intended to imply this, who might we expect to understand it as such, and perhaps make it explicit?
b) Naturally I wonder how Tommy sees this proposal or these data vis-a-vis the PA. Do you see some interaction with the PA?
c) If Brent Nongbri's (later) redating of p66 were accepted, would that modify your view of the history?
d) Stipulating that you have not written here about the subject,it may interest some readers to note the forthcoming book by Ariel Sabar, Veritas: A Harvard Professor, a Con Man, and the Gospel of Jesus's Wife. The Abstract (taken from WorldCat): "In 2012, Dr. Karen King, a star professor at the Harvard Divinity School, announced a blockbuster discovery at a scholarly conference just steps from the Vatican: She had found an ancient fragment of papyrus in which Jesus calls Mary Magdalene "my wife." The discovery made front-page news around the world - if early Christians believed that Jesus was married, it would threaten not just the celibate, all-male priesthood, but the entire the 2,000-year history of the faith. Biblical scholars were in an uproar, but King had impeccable credentials as a world-renowned authority on female figures in the Gnostic gospels. The "Gospel of Jesus's Wife," as she titled her discovery, was both a crowning career achievement and powerful proof for her arguments that there were alternative, and much more inclusive, versions of Christianity from its beginnings. Assigned to write a story about King's find, award-winning journalist Ariel Sabar began to unearth disquieting questions about the papyrus. His globe-spanning investigation would lead to a rural hamlet in inland Florida, where he discovered a college dropout with a prophetess wife, a curious past in Germany, and a tortured relationship with the Catholic Church. The deeper Sabar dug into the mysteries of the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife," the more surreal the story became. VERITAS is at once a surprising detective story, a fascinating journey through the rarefied worlds of Biblical Studies and Egyptology, a piercing psychological portrait of a many-faced con artist, and a tragedy about a brilliant scholar handed a piece of ancient paper that appealed to her greatest hopes for Christianity--but forced a reckoning with fundamental questions about the line between reason and faith"
Dear Stephen, We all know that book is coming. Can’t see the relevance.
DeleteHi Ally Kateusz, I was wondering if you (or Miss Schrader for that matter) have changed or modified your respective veiws on the John vs. Luke argument?
DeleteHello Mr. Goranson - pardon my delayed reply. You are correct that classes are now keeping me busy and I don't have much time to interact with the comments here. But very quick replies to your points:
Deletea) I'm arguing that the Evangelist urged the reader to make this identification through exact textual parallels. See pp. 387-388 of my HTR article: "Several specific words are emphasized in both chapters: μαριαμ ('Mary,' 11:2, 20:16); κλαυση, κλαιουσαν / κλαιουσα, κλαιεις ('crying,' 11:31, 11:33, 20:11, 20:13, 20:15); που τεθεικατε αυτον / που εθηκας αυτον ('where have you laid him' / 'where you have laid him,' 11:34, 20:15); μνημειον ('tomb,' 11:38, 20:11); λιθος / λιθον ('stone,' 11:38, 20:1); σουδαριω / σουδαριον ('handkerchief,' 11:44, 20:7); and ο αδελφος μου / τους αδελφους μου ('my brother' / 'my brothers,' 11:21, 20:17). Deirdre Good notes that 'both [Marys] weep over a dead man at a tomb; both are consoled (11:31, 33; 20:11, 15); both accrue followers (11:32, 45; 20:18); both experience resurrection (11:43, 45; 20:16).' Mary of Bethany is also associated with Jesus’s burial (12:7), as is Mary Magdalene (20:1). These repeated themes demonstrate an obvious parallelism between the chapters, a parallelism that would certainly be amplified in Martha’s absence." There is evidence that this strategy of parallelism worked, since Hippolytus, the Manichaeans, and probably Tertullian (see Against Marcion IV.18) identified Mary of Bethany as Mary Magdalene.
c) Brent Nongbri's redating of P66 is interesting. However it doesn't change the argument since I'm suggesting that both one- and two-sister text forms were circulating for several centuries. The change would need to have been made in the second century because Origen definitely knows Martha in John's Gospel.
d) I agree with Ally Kateusz that I don't see the relevance. This blogpost is on the subject of New Testament manuscripts (not forgeries), and how widespread second- and third-century debates might have affected our received text.
Hope that answers the questions.
Hello Mr. Rose. I liked your argument on the Luke vs. John problem very much. Your alternative explanation for phemonenon (a) is certainly worth the guild's consideration, and I hope others comment on your idea as well. I wouldn't say my overall position has changed, since the one-sister text form (see above) can account for basically all of the aberrant phenomena. But that doesn't mean that other factors might be at play, and your contribution is very worthwhile to this discussion. Thank you for your thoughtful engagement with the subject. (And if you want access to the full data spreadsheet, please don't hesitate to put in a request.) :)
DeleteMiss Schrader, is this data sheet different than the one offered in the first post? If not I believe you have missed a couple comments of mine on your part 2 post. One is an important addition to my previous argument on "phenomena (a)" dated 9/03 7:20am I believe. -
DeleteMatthew M. Rose 9/04/2019 4:57 pm
DeleteHi Elizabeth, speaking of the section in Luke you wrote "Do you think we simply need a bigger manuscript sample?"
I would say yes. Approx. 10% of the manuscript tradition is probably not going to give you a clear view on this. Especially considering that you surveyed more mss. in John 11:1-12:2 than here.
Elizabeth continues "Also, I'm not sure that you have looked at the variants in my data table, since I haven't gotten a request from you. Have you looked at the data set?"
That would of been rude of me. I did look at a data set (not sure if there is more than one). The one I saw had approx. 3500 reference points for Greek mss. and approx. 4800 when the Latin, Eccl. Fathers, etc. were included (this is from memory). If you have more data, preferably a linear list of the primary verses I'd like to see it. Did you have a chance to look at my second post concerning the Luke vs John argument?
Dear Ms. Schrader, that answers, but partially.
DeleteNongbri's proposed dating of P66 not mattering to your argument is not clear to me. You offer Origen's commentary ("definitely") as a dating peg for your proposed interpolation, yet on HTR page 384 you note that a manuscript of that passage "also states that Mary served in 12:2." If differing "text forms were circulating for several centuries" [for Patristics as well as NT?] and you have cited Origen on both sides, how does he provide a sure peg?
Though Candida Moss used the word "conspiracy," I don't recall you doing so. Yet if the proposed interpolation were intentional, falsification could be used. (Falsification and forgery might be considered related, but let each reader decide.)
Whether the proposed interpolations were intentional and whether they were a punctiliar event or a drawn-out process, in your view, would seem to matter for history claims. Or was there, by hypothesis, a sense that "this cannot be, he must have meant Martha"?
I have difficulty imagining the gJohn writer being too shy to be explicit. Does he not use strong language? Was naming MM "too much for this time" (as your Duke interview offered)? That is, John projecting the future to be discovered, or some in the future retrojecting? Or neither or both?
I had in mind actual NT mss having an annotation of Magdalene, had the parallels you give worked. Did they work for Origen, or was this over his head?
Mostly questions here. Interesting proposal(s), whether overstated or not.
On the PA in connection to the meal in Bethany, see: David Strauss, Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, 1864, chapter 84 "Das bethanische Mahl und die Salbung". On p. 531 the PA is described as a variation on the story in the GospHebr as is told by Papias. On pp. 532-3 is a nice summary of Strauss' view. Strauss' chapter 84 is nice example of eloquent 'higher criticism'. I recommend to read it carefully.
ReplyDeletehttps://archive.org/details/daslebenjesufrd00stragoog/page/n558
Hi Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI’ve followed your posts with great interest. Thanks! I’ve noticed that where Mary Magdalene is introduced for the first time in every Gospel she is identified explicitly as “Mary the Magdalene.” In Matthew, Mark and Luke she is never called anything but that. In John, she is introduced in the same way in 19:25, and again in 20:1, but in 20:11-17 she is simply “Mary.” Only here in the NT is that the case. In 20:18, she is again “Mary the Magdalene,” confirming her identity as apostle to the apostles. If your reconstruction is correct, then 11:1 would be the first mention of her in John; consequently, wouldn’t we expect “Mary the Magdalene”? Instead she is identified as the one who anointed Jesus’ feet, a much more ambiguous identification. If we could find “Mary the Magdalene” buried somewhere in the manuscript tradition, it would help your case immeasurably. Not a smoking gun, perhaps, but a proof that at least someone read it that way. Without that, how would the reader know that Lazarus’ sister was Mary Magdalene and not some other Mary?
Hello Anonymous - please see my reply to Paul Burkhart in the previous post: "I am suggesting that it was the intention of the Fourth Evangelist to imply that Lazarus' sister Mary was Mary Magdalene - and that she was both the Christological confessor and the anointer. This may have been a "correction" of Mark's Gospel (as John seems wont to do). Perhaps John, knowing the confession and anointing to be touchy subjects, decided to refer to her only as 'Mary' in John 11 - but many exact textual parallels were made with the scene in John 20, which the reader would probably only pick up on after a few readings of the Gospel. John only uses the title 'Magdalene' in scenes where Mark also used it - i.e. at the cross and empty tomb." For a list of the exact textual parallels and early believers that Mary of Bethany was Mary Magdalene, see my reply to Stephen Goranson above.
DeleteThe idea that Mary the magdalene was Mary of Bethany is worth exploring, regardless of how we reconstruct the original text of John 11. The issue is outside the scope of this blog, so I'll be brief and if people want to discuss it further we could transfer the conversation to another forum.
DeleteThose who performed acts of generosity towards the Jesus movement (principally those who hosted it) were often (always?) given new names. See my 2016 piece in Tyndale Bulletin here. Simon hosted Jesus and his followers and was named Cephas, the rock on which the assembly was to be built. Mary also hosted Jesus and performed an act of generosity (John 12:1-3), so it would not be surprising if she was named the magdalene (of the tower) as a result. The epithet, symbolic of protective strength for Jesus and his followers, would be a close equivalent of Cephas, another architectural image appropriate for a host.
To anonymous's question, it is appropriate that Mary should not be called the magdalene until after her act of hosting at John 12:1-3, for which (on this theory) she was given the epithet. Notice how Luke brings the perfume story forward to just before his first mention of Mary the magdalene. The perfume pouring act was told in the early church in memory of her (Matt 26:13; Mark 14:9) and it was well known to John's intended audience (John 11:2). It was the act that defined her, so it would not be surprising if John's audience knew that she had been given the epithet magdalene because of it. There would then have been no confusion about whether Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were the same person or different. Also, as I argue in the paper, the ancients were quite comfortable switching between different names for the same person in the same text.
The identification of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene fits in many ways, but I reserve judgement. More discussion is needed.
Hi, Richard, just a thought. Wouldn't the fact that she is named Magdalene infer that she is not from Bethany?
DeleteHello Mr. Rose - the Hebrew word "migdal" simply means "tower." It is not necessarily a reference to a place name. In fact ancient authors were divided on whether the word was a title for Mary (St. Jerome thought Mary was given the "tower" nickname due to her “earnestness and ardent faith", whereas Eusebius thought that there were *two* Marys from Magdala - and he thought Magdala was in Judea!!) For more on this subject, I recommend this excellent article by Joan Taylor: https://www.academia.edu/8651424/Missing_Magdala_and_the_Name_of_Mary_Magdalene
DeleteHi Miss Schrader, I'm obviously (or not so obviously) aware of what "Migdol" means. My point was that the "general" consensus on this topic (as far as I'm aware) is that Mary Magdalene was from (or at least intimately connected) with "Migdol", as opposed to Bethany. Thus the name Mary Magdelena. Whether or not various Church Fathers agree or speculate otherwise is another story. I'm sure one could find support of almost anything that could be imagined from the early Church writers. Much the same could also be said of the Rabbi's in regards to the OT.
DeleteElizabeth, doesn't your theory require much more drastic changes to verses 17-36? It seems to me that what you've done with vv. 1-5 is the easy part.
ReplyDeleteHello Dr. Rowe!. First of all...you thought this was easy?! ;) But in all seriousness, you raise a good point.
DeleteThere is indeed textual and patristic instability around the sisters in verses 11:20, 11:21, 11:24, 11:27, and 11:32 (if you wish to request access to my data table to see for yourself, the link is in the first post). Egeria's fourth-century journal says at 5.1: "And as they go from Jerusalem to the Lazarium, there is, about five hundred paces from the latter place, a church in the street on that spot where Mary the sister of Lazarus met with the Lord..." However at this point I am not able to reconstruct that portion of John 11 with the data I've examined. That said, I've only looked at about 200 manuscripts, and there are thousands out there. Perhaps some manuscript has preserved a one-sister text in those verses? It's a pipe dream of mine to look at EVERY extant Greek manuscript of John 11....
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's clear that you've done considerable work, so I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't.
DeleteBut a reconstruction of the original behind vv. 17-36 that would comport with your theory would have to omit large sections of text that go well beyond any extant variant readings I think. It goes beyond just the fact of there being some "problems around Martha" among the textual winesses for those verses. And I don't see how there can be enough basis to support the thesis that Martha is an interpolation into the Gospel unless these verses are fully accounted for.
Hello Mr. Rowe. I agree that to completely "prove" my thesis, we need all of the verses to be fully accounted for. But five cogent verses is a substantial start (especially since only about 5% of the extant manuscripts of John have been publicly transcribed!). As I said, I intend to keep looking.
DeleteNote that Tertullian gives the Christological confession to Mary, and Egeria mentions a spot where "Mary" (not "Mary and Martha") met Jesus. There is also the identical quote from Martha and Mary at John 11:21 and 11:32, which suggests that something was doubled.
As my data tables note, several manuscripts do indeed say that Mary went to meet Jesus in John 11:20 (983, 1344, and 1689). 983 is a direct ancestor of 1689, but 1344 is far closer genealogically to manuscripts like 157, 579, and 2680, which also have striking problems around Martha. If I had to hazard a theory, I'd say perhaps the initial text of John 11:20 said that Mary met Jesus. In that case, Μαριὰμ δὲ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ ἐκαθέζετο must be the composition of the interpolator. Verses 28-30, and the doubled verse (11:32) would also likely need to be compositions of the interpolator. That is my best theory as of now. I do hope that at some point, there will be an opportunity to examine ALL of the manuscripts of John 11. (Alan Taylor Farnes has agreed to do this with me if I can secure a grant for us to look at John 11 manuscripts full-time!!)
(My sincerest apologies - I believe I should have addressed you as Dr. Rowe in my previous post.)
DeleteNo apology necessary for that. But thank you.
Delete"The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method will hopefully shed additional light on the problems in John 11. I suggest that those working with the CBGM consider looking..."
ReplyDelete"Thus when we use the CBGM to look at this problem in John 11"
Money makes strange bedfellows
Elizabeth, have you considered the Secret Gospel of Mark (if authentic) to support your theory since there is only one woman (possibly Mary) mentioned as the sister of the man raised from the dead?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the Secret Gospel of Mark to be authentic. More likely I think Morton Smith looked at P66 and saw the sister split in two at John 11:3. In fact he refers to P66 in his critical apparatus in the scholarly version of his book ("Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark"), but he fails to note the sister split in two in P66, even though Fee and Boismard had already published on the extraordinary nature of that scribal correction by the time Smith wrote. His failure to note the change in P66 is quite fishy.
DeleteMiss Schrader, you seemed to have missed this addition to my previous arguments concerning what you term "phenomena (a)". I have placed it here for ease of access.
ReplyDeleteMatthew M. Rose 9/03/2019 7:20 am
Miss Schrader, you wrote:
"You are suggesting that the name variants should demonstrate a 14.5 to 1 ratio between John and Luke. But the trouble is that there is *zero* scribal confusion on the names in the surveyed Greek manuscripts of Luke."
That's not exactly what I was suggesting. The 14/15 to 1 ratio is in regards to scribal error in general. The 3 to 1 ratio is concerning the raw numbers for Martha in each respective location. These need to be weaved together in light of my explanation concerning spacing. Then you have the multiplier, which in this case would be: the pairing of MAPIAC KAI MAPθAC in John 11:1 (which consequently lead to the sub-singular omission of KAI MAPθAC via hom.tel. in A* & 157), the close proximity of MAPIA in vs.2 (only 19 units away), then John 11:19 presents another pairing of MAPθAN KAI MAPIAN (the singular omission of KAI MAPIAN via hom.tel. in ms.28 bares clear witness to the increase in posibility and/or probability of scribal error here). Another instance of close proximity would be vs.20-21 where you have MAPθA separated from MAPIA by 38 units and then another MAPθA 27 units down the line.
These distances could give scribes much trouble when going back and forth between exemplar(s) and copying. They also are within range of lining up above-below one another depending on line length. Considering the two names are nearly identical, this could prove very problematic for scribes or copyist. Point being, all this would need to be taken into account.
Elizabeth again states "Although Mr. Rose has made an attempt to answer point (a)..."
Let's see if we can continue to answer this more to your satisfaction. We move on to Luke ch.10:38-43...Here I hope to shed some light on why there is no (acc. to Miss Schrader's current research) "problem with Martha" within the Textual transmission of the Greek NT. Now, MAPθA occurs in vs. 38 (and it's surrounding gives no opportunity for hom.tel. or hom.arc.), 54 units later in vs.39 we have MAPIA(M). This is outside the range of normal line length to be a factor in regards to parablepsis and the immediate surrounding; ...OYMENH MAPIA(M) H KAI...once again excludes hom.tel. & hom.arc. from the conversation. John 10:40 is the next instance of MAPθA and again it is to far down the line (59 units from the previous MAPIA) to be a factor in a possible misidentification with a nearby MAPIA. This location also gives no possibility of a scribal error via HT or HA in the surrounding letters. Next up is MAPθA MAPθA of vs.41. This would be the only location conducive to scribal error, i.e.
MAPθA MAPθA MEPIMNAC
Now I would not be surprised at all if there are some manuscripts which exhibit scribal error (HT or HA) in this location.-But what would it prove or add to your theory if Martha is only mentioned once (instead of twice) via scribal error in one or two manuscripts here?
The last reference is in vs.42, where MAPIA occurs 45-50 units down from MAPθA MAPθA. Once again this is too far away for parablepsis to be a factor. It is true that some mss. read XPEIA MAPIA, some XEPIA MAPIAM, some ENOC MAPIA or ENOC MAPIAM. The XPEIA MAPIA reading could result in HT and once again I would not be surprised if some ms. or mss. display an omission of MAPIA in this location. Even so, this is a reference to Mary, not Martha so it's somewhat obsolete.
Hello Mr. Rose! I did indeed see this post. My response above was a reply to the "addition to your previous arguments." However it seems you would like me to respond in a bit more detail.
DeleteYou point out quite rightly: "Another instance of close proximity would be vs. 20-21 where you have MAPθA separated from MAPIA by 38 units and then another MAPθA 27 units down the line. These distances could give scribes much trouble when going back and forth between exemplar(s) and copying." I think this is a valid point. However in Luke, interestingly we also get exactly 38 units between μαρθα and μαρια in vv. 38-39, and anywhere between 8 and 46 units between μαρθα and μαρια in vv. 41-42 (the two names are actually on the same line in Codex Bezae). According to this reasoning, we should see similar phenomena in Luke 10:38-42 and the second two thirds of John 11.
I also agree with this point: "They also are within range of lining up above-below one another depending on line length. Considering the two names are nearly identical, this could prove very problematic for scribes or copyist. Point being, all this would need to be taken into account." Yet the same thing can happen in Luke 10 - again see Codex Bezae (folia 229v-230r).
I agree with you that "I would not be surprised at all if there are some manuscripts which exhibit scribal error (HT or HA)" in these locations. If I recall correctly, there is one surveyed Lukan manuscript that dropped the second μαρθα, which you rightly predicted. I can check the exact manuscript the next time I'm in the library if you wish. Nevertheless there is still no confusion of the two names in the transmission of Luke, and there plenty in the last two thirds of John 11 (even though the distances between the names in Luke 10:38-42 are basically identical to the latter part of John 11). Please see my point above: "Your alternative explanation for phemonenon (a) is certainly worth the guild's consideration, and I hope others comment on your idea as well."
Lastly, I'm glad you were able to see the data table. However I don’t see your name in my data spreadsheet requests. Might I ask how you got access to it? Thanks so much again for engaging with this question!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMs. Schrader, I've enjoyed your posts. Brown, in his classic, The Gospel According To John, lists many more inconsistencies regarding the Mary/Martha stories than you have. Course he had over 500 pages to do so. He suggests layers of editing. Seems to me the default would be that the author of GJohn had separate sources for Mary and Martha here and put them together.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your Methodology here, do you assume that the grammar of the author of GJohn was superior to subsequent copyists/editors? If not, then why do you not consider an original with many of the difficulties you have identified a candidate for originality?
Hello there Mr. Wallack! I admit that I'm not enough of a Greek specialist to be able to assess the quality of the grammar in John 11 versus the rest of the gospel. However I am aware of Brown (and others) pointing out that John 11 seems to have been heavily edited.
DeleteAlso see the wonderful comment of Richard Fellows on the previous blogpost: "The accepted text of John 11:1 is unusual in that it defines a woman (Martha) by her relationship to a female relative (Mary) rather than by her relationship to a male relative (Lazarus). The implication is that Mary was more important than Lazarus. Similarly in John 11:5 (in the accepted text) Mary is referred to as Martha’s sister, rather than as Lazarus’s sister, implying that Martha was more important than Lazarus. Also, in this list of those whom Jesus loved, Martha and her sister are mentioned before Lazarus, and name order was important." Fellows has correctly pointed out that there is complete inconsistency in the received text regarding who is presented as more important than whom, and which sibling is the person according to which other siblings are introduced. Such inconsistency, to my eye, may be a result of interference in the authorial text. I believe that the internal consistency of the one-sister textform above strengthens the case that it may be the initial text. In other words, I'm not the right scholar to assess the grammar of the author/editors, but the above point from Mr. Fellows does make a valid assessment of consistency vs. inconsistency of authorial style.
Hi Elizabeth! This is all very interesting, and I can't wait to see some textual flow diagrams on John 11. I have a couple of questions :-)
ReplyDeleteAm I correct in thinking that if these variations (e.g. lack of Martha, wrong pronoun) will show bad coherence when evaluated, it will support your critics, who explain the variations as random transcriptional errors that emerge spontaneously at different points in the transmission of the text, and thus their agreements will seem coincidental, but that even if the variations turn out to have good coherence that might in itself just leave the question open concerning the initial text, since both original and non-original readings can be transmitted with good coherence? And is what you are suggesting that the ECM editors should start by evaluating the pregenealogical coherence of all the witnesses, which across the different variation units show irregularities around Mary-Martha in John 11, instead of setting out working one variation unit at the time, since the different variations you point to might not otherwise be considered together as evidence for the reconstructed text form? If that is what you are suggesting, I might need some help to understand how a variant reading in one variation unit of a witness can support the superiority of another variant reading in a different variation unit in another witness (even though the two witnesses have high pregeneological coherence) if we don't see agreement between the witnesses in the same variation unit.
Conrad
Miss Schrader, you wrote "There is indeed textual and patristic instability around the sisters in verses 11:20, 11:21, 11:24, 11:27, and 11:32"
ReplyDeleteOnce again this evidence proves the exact opposite of what you have suggested. Singular, sub-singular and rarely attested readings prove an overwhelming stability of the Text. Why is the exception always your foundation? Your building your theory on the sand, meanwhile setting aside the rock as insignificant and corrupted. This is extremely unscientific! Textual Criticism is a Science, not a playground for conjecture and dreams. I am ashamed to remind you that this is the very Word of God which you are handling,--And in this case I must insist mishandling. Who has ever followed any of these readings? Which edition are they included in? Your primary evidence consist of simple scribal errors, Church Father hiccups, minute versional support and for the most part insignificant (and generally late) manuscript evidence. Every well beaten path you light upon is refused and an untravelled pathway which leads to nowhere is taken.
Miss Schrader continues; "Note that Tertullian gives the Christological confession to Mary"
Once again you have brought the exception which makes the rule. So what if Tertullian does, he is one of several hundred Church Fathers. What is his testimony against the whole lot? Nevermind that the total consensus of evidence is against him, versions, Fathers and the entire deposit of Greek mss..
Again Miss Schrader states;
"As my data tables note, several manuscripts do indeed say that Mary went to meet Jesus in John 11:20 (983, 1344, and 1689)."
So on the authority of three late mss. (of little textual value no doubt in such an instance), we are to dismiss the voice of universal antiquity, again? If William of Occham had a razor, you my dear have a sledgehammer. Which (to the dismay of many) you intend to use upon fifty-nine consecutive verses of the fourth Gospel. This is nothing but a proposal to destroy the eleventh chapter of John, as well as the first two verses of the following chapter on nothing but an overzealous whim.
--And yet "it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing" and so your carefull collection of data is commendable and shows proof of an eager mind along side a thirst for research. Virtues not to be triffled at! The downfall, I regret to say, is an unbridled thrust towards your goal coupled with a magnitude of confirmation bias I have never encountered. This is what your thesis is composed of, a thesis which proposes the need to inact a form of wholesale conjectural emmendation upon more than one chapter of John's Gospel on the most slender of evidence. This is inadmissible to say the least. -MMR
Miss Schrader writes:
ReplyDelete"However in Luke, interestingly we also get exactly 38 units between μαρθα and μαρια in vv. 38-39,"
Only if you are following the corrupt reading of P45 P75 B and the Sahidic. The NA/UBS committee has followed this reading to their own discredit and Metzger's subsequent comments are as bland as the reading itself.
A reading which once again can be explained by commonly observed scribal habits. A simple dropping of AYTHC (for what reason matters little) within an early exemplar and later evidenced by Aleph C* L 33 etc., can explain the larger omission of ...AYTON {EIC THN OIKIAN} via homoioteleuton. The 12 unit length being ideal for a line skip or common eye skip (parablepsis). Mishaps which these particular mss. are all too familiar with. The said reading is condemned by A D W E F G H K M P U Y* gamma delta lambda pi theta psi 070 f1 f13 28 157 etc... Byz. Lect. it.a.aur.b.c.d.e.f.ff2.i.q.r1 vulg. syr.c.s.p.h.pal. copt.bo arm. eth. geo. slav. Basil Cyril(lem.) and Augustine --An insurmountable array of testimony is therefore set against the meager roll of P45 P75 and B.
Miss Schrader cont.
"and anywhere between 8 and 46 units between μαρθα and μαρια in vv. 41-42 (the two names are actually on the same line in Codex Bezae)."
Codex Beza is quite obviously corrupt in this instance, so why bring it to the table as evidence in this context? It's unique reading here is not to be leaned upon as an example.
Again Miss Schrader adds; "I agree with you that "I would not be surprised at all if there are some manuscripts which exhibit scribal error (HT or HA)" in these locations. If I recall correctly, there is one surveyed Lukan manuscript that dropped the second μαρθα, which you rightly predicted."
Although it is refreshing to find ourselves in agreement, the fact still stands that this is the one place which is highly conducive towards scribal error within the section of Luke in question. So to find a singular, non-important instance of haplography via HT or HA (go figure) here as opposed to the many other reference points is in line with your previous discoveries in John. Why then has the absence of "a problem around Martha" in Luke been touted as a pillar upon which your theory rest, if the one place that scribal error could be expected has borne similar fruit to those in John?
Elizabeth Schrader wrote that "I wouldn't say my overall position has changed, since the one-sister text form (see above) can account for basically all of the aberrant phenomena."
ReplyDeleteThis is a major problem for anyone who even remotely believes in the preservation of Scripture. Consider the following.
If there was only one sister in the autograph of John,
1) Why does verse 20 say one went to Jesus and the other stayed in the house?
2) Why does verse 28 say one went to call the other to join her with Jesus?
3) Why does verse 28 say she did so secretly? Why add the extra word if it is an interpolation/forgery, as Dr. Schrader believes?
4) Why does verse 28 say one sister told the other that the Master called for her, if there was only one sister?
5) Why does verse 30 say that Jesus was still outside town where one sister had met him while the other sister was still at the house?
6) Why does verse 21 give the words of one sister and verse 32 give the words of the other sister when they said the same thing? If there was really only one sister, which is an idea based primarily on a few scribal peculiarities that are not followed by any textual critics, then all the material between verses 28 and 33 is a forgery (not by the original author), besides numerous other alterations throughout this chapter and the next.
But not one--not one--manuscript shows direct evidence for this interpolation.
It is disappointing to see this on the blog, but it is a guest post. So I have to agree with Matthew M. Rose, who wrote, "Once again this evidence proves the exact opposite of what you have suggested. Singular, sub-singular and rarely attested readings prove an overwhelming stability of the Text. Why is the exception always your foundation? Your building your theory on the sand, meanwhile setting aside the rock as insignificant and corrupted. This is extremely unscientific! Textual Criticism is a Science, not a playground for conjecture and dreams. I am ashamed to remind you that this is the very Word of God which you are handling,--And in this case I must insist mishandling. Who has ever followed any of these readings?"
and with Maurice Robinson, who wrote on the first blog, "I concur with Mr Snapp on this point, since quite seriously in my opinion, the exercise is not textual criticism as normally understood, since determination of an actual "original text" would not follow on the basis of the quite singular variants adduced among the (mostly late) MSS noted.
"Rather, the thesis is primarily an exercise in higher criticism, presuming a particular view of (at least) source criticism, followed by an application of redaction criticism that merely happens to utilize several scattered and quite independent scribal variants as a jumping-off point. This, rather than anything text-critical per se."
Elizabeth's theory requires that at an early date one or more copyists changed the male pronoun at John 11:1 to the female pronoun. This change will have sidelined Lazarus, a man, and highlighted Mary as the prominent sibling of Martha. My question is whether anyone can think of other early scribal changes that make the text more favorable to women. Isn't the trend normally in the other direction? The generally accepted text of John 11:1 was the harder reading for the early copyists, wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteAt Luke 10:38 P75, P45, B and sa all just say that Martha welcomed Jesus, ending the verse with υπεδεξατο αυτον. However, most manuscripts include the words εις τον οικν αυτησ at the end and some have εις την οικιαν. Metzger writes:
"No motive is apparent for the deletion of the phrase "[received him} into her house if it were present in the text originally. On the other hand, the bold and bare ὑπεδέξατο αὐτόν seems to call for some appropriate addition, which copyists supplied in various forms,..."
But why would the evangelist have written something so bold and bare that it needed correcting? Moreover, Metzger is wrong: there is a reason why copyists may have either deleted those final words or refrained from adding them in. Before about 200 AD it was recognized that hosts were given authority in the early church (See my 2016 Tyn Bul paper), and hosts had to be worthy of their guests (Matt 10:11; Acts 16:15). Early copyists therefore might have been reluctant to produce texts that explicitly said that Martha hosted Jesus in her house, for that would have given dignity to a woman. It may therefore be important to note that the very earliest manuscripts do not afford Martha that dignity. The longer reading came to dominate, but only after churches no longer gave authority to their hosts. Whichever variant was original, we see a reluctance in the earliest manuscripts to elevate Martha, a woman. Or is there a better explanation for the temporal distribution of the variants?