tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post7794482270380329154..comments2024-03-28T19:21:17.654+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Is Martha an Interpolation into John’s Gospel? Part IIIP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-65759831573979998622019-09-13T18:55:29.906+01:002019-09-13T18:55:29.906+01:00Elizabeth's theory requires that at an early d...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?<br /><br />At 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:<br /><br />"No motive is apparent for the deletion of the phrase "[received him} <i>into her house</i> 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,..."<br /><br />But why would the evangelist have written something so bold and bare that it needed correcting? Moreover, Metzger is wrong: there <i>is</i> 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?Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13412709861901329552019-09-08T21:40:54.078+01:002019-09-08T21:40:54.078+01:00Elizabeth Schrader wrote that "I wouldn't...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."<br /><br />This is a major problem for anyone who even remotely believes in the preservation of Scripture. Consider the following.<br /><br />If there was only one sister in the autograph of John,<br />1) Why does verse 20 say one went to Jesus and the other stayed in the house?<br />2) Why does verse 28 say one went to call the other to join her with Jesus?<br />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?<br />4) Why does verse 28 say one sister told the other that the Master called for her, if there was only one sister?<br />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?<br />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. <br /><br />But not one--not one--manuscript shows direct evidence for this interpolation. <br /><br />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?"<br /><br />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.<br />"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."Matthew Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13392983543124826157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55938957718113116442019-09-07T15:42:14.788+01:002019-09-07T15:42:14.788+01:00Miss Schrader writes:
"However in Luke, inter...Miss Schrader writes:<br />"However in Luke, interestingly we also get exactly 38 units between μαρθα and μαρια in vv. 38-39,"<br /><br />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. <br />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.<br /><br /><br />Miss Schrader cont.<br />"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)."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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." <br /><br />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?Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-47371222605912734492019-09-07T07:49:45.297+01:002019-09-07T07:49:45.297+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48449333255861008242019-09-07T06:44:09.031+01:002019-09-07T06:44:09.031+01:00Miss Schrader, you wrote "There is indeed tex...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"<br /><br />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? 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.<br /><br /><br />Miss Schrader continues; "Note that Tertullian gives the Christological confession to Mary"<br /><br />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..<br /><br />Again Miss Schrader states; <br />"As my data tables note, several manuscripts do indeed say that Mary went to meet Jesus in John 11:20 (983, 1344, and 1689)."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />--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<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38810400648707539142019-09-06T13:51:07.152+01:002019-09-06T13:51:07.152+01:00No apology necessary for that. But thank you.No apology necessary for that. But thank you.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-65017391058816147992019-09-05T21:12:35.453+01:002019-09-05T21:12:35.453+01:00Hi Miss Schrader, I'm obviously (or not so obv...Hi 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.<br /><br />Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-69759950642262159002019-09-05T20:08:16.851+01:002019-09-05T20:08:16.851+01:00(My sincerest apologies - I believe I should have ...(My sincerest apologies - I believe I should have addressed you as Dr. Rowe in my previous post.)Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77243541403725919372019-09-05T19:19:54.728+01:002019-09-05T19:19:54.728+01:00Hello Mr. Rowe. I agree that to completely "p...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. <br /><br />Note 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.<br /><br />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!!)Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57187235329765597422019-09-05T18:57:06.217+01:002019-09-05T18:57:06.217+01:00Hello Mr. Rose - the Hebrew word "migdal"...Hello 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_MagdaleneElizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-14603143220858391642019-09-05T18:52:32.619+01:002019-09-05T18:52:32.619+01:00Hello there Mr. Wallack! I admit that I'm not ...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. <br /><br />Also 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.Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-19484602676965704552019-09-05T18:44:33.660+01:002019-09-05T18:44:33.660+01:00Hello Mr. Rose! I did indeed see this post. My res...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. <br /><br />You 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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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! <br />Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7891621256862644622019-09-05T15:19:24.967+01:002019-09-05T15:19:24.967+01:00Dear Ms. Schrader, that answers, but partially.
N...Dear Ms. Schrader, that answers, but partially. <br />Nongbri'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?<br />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.)<br />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"?<br />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?<br />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?<br />Mostly questions here. Interesting proposal(s), whether overstated or not.Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54649260833105076822019-09-05T12:10:18.362+01:002019-09-05T12:10:18.362+01:00Hi Elizabeth! This is all very interesting, and I ...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 :-)<br /><br />Am 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.<br /><br />ConradConrad Thorup Elmelundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13418174969818589253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71121962309245182642019-09-05T00:17:25.770+01:002019-09-05T00:17:25.770+01:00Ms. Schrader, I've enjoyed your posts. Brown, ...Ms. 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. <br /><br />Regarding 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? JoeWallackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10666074795187377455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7667433264497391042019-09-05T00:12:12.059+01:002019-09-05T00:12:12.059+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.JoeWallackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10666074795187377455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-58205870252681658952019-09-04T19:58:24.092+01:002019-09-04T19:58:24.092+01:00Matthew M. Rose 9/04/2019 4:57 pm
Hi Elizabeth, sp...Matthew M. Rose 9/04/2019 4:57 pm<br />Hi Elizabeth, speaking of the section in Luke you wrote "Do you think we simply need a bigger manuscript sample?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?" <br /><br />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?MMRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38770409684745984722019-09-04T19:54:19.134+01:002019-09-04T19:54:19.134+01:00Miss Schrader, you seemed to have missed this addi...Miss 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.<br /><br /><br />Matthew M. Rose 9/03/2019 7:20 am<br />Miss Schrader, you wrote:<br />"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." <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Elizabeth again states "Although Mr. Rose has made an attempt to answer point (a)..."<br />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.<br /><br />MAPθA MAPθA MEPIMNAC<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br />Matthew M. Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44835059289809869092019-09-04T19:21:06.015+01:002019-09-04T19:21:06.015+01:00It's clear that you've done considerable w...It's clear that you've done considerable work, so I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't.<br /><br />But 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.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50832724347389617372019-09-04T19:17:07.022+01:002019-09-04T19:17:07.022+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17379580718958072172019-09-04T19:05:08.553+01:002019-09-04T19:05:08.553+01:00Hi, Richard, just a thought. Wouldn't the fact...Hi, Richard, just a thought. Wouldn't the fact that she is named Magdalene infer that she is not from Bethany?MMRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87840670754806499142019-09-04T18:58:27.108+01:002019-09-04T18:58:27.108+01:00The idea that Mary the magdalene was Mary of Betha...The 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.<br /><br />Those 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 <a href="https://legacy.tyndalehouse.com/Bulletin/67=2016/Fellows-22.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The identification of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene fits in many ways, but I reserve judgement. More discussion is needed.<br />Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1359685040457592382019-09-04T18:56:48.872+01:002019-09-04T18:56:48.872+01:00Miss Schrader, is this data sheet different than t...Miss 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. -Matthew M. Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74719786817274805062019-09-04T18:47:30.052+01:002019-09-04T18:47:30.052+01:00I do not believe the Secret Gospel of Mark to be a...I 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. Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-59040601852375586252019-09-04T18:45:09.474+01:002019-09-04T18:45:09.474+01:00Hello Dr. Rowe!. First of all...you thought this w...Hello Dr. Rowe!. First of all...you thought this was easy?! ;) But in all seriousness, you raise a good point. <br />There 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....Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.com