Today as we continue the interview with Dr. Maurice
Robinson, we investigate how the Byzantine Priority position
deals with one specific textual variant-unit.
Q: Could you provide an example
of your text-critical approach by walking me through why you favor the
Byzantine reading of Luke 6:1, instead of the Alexandrian reading?
Robinson: I addressed this particular unit in a 1993 article (in Faith and Mission 11), and somewhat repeat myself here.
I regard the shorter Alexandrian reading as possibly due to homoioteleuton in
the Alexandrian archetype, even while suggesting other proximate causes of
variation also to exist. A primary principle of internal evidence should
be to presume accidental error as more likely than intentional alteration,
especially where omission might result from transcriptional
failure and yet still produce a “sensible” reading — one that then would be
less likely to receive correction in subsequent copies within its particular
transmissional line.
As for a short walk-through, the external evidence is basically
clear: the dominant united Byzantine Textform reads en sabbatw deuteroprwtw diaporeuesqai, while a small
minority made up of predominantly Alexandrian-type manuscripts, along with several versional witnesses, omits deuteroprwtw. Assuming
the originality of the more dominant Byzantine reading, the presence of deuteroprwtw appears best to explain the
alternative than vice versa,
and that on two grounds:
1. Accidental omission. The
transcriptional factor is fairly obvious: the shorter reading lacks deuteroprwtw; this easily could
have occurred — particularly in a small number of manuscripts — due to
haplography, skipping from -tw d- to -tw d- in the phrase sabbatw deuteroprwtw diap-.
Such readily could have been the proximate cause of the Alexandrian
archetypal reading underlying its omitting manuscripts at this point, and also
for those otherwise unrelated minuscules that likely reflect independent error.
But this is not the only possible factor, since intentional removal of a
difficulty cannot be ruled out.
2. Intentional omission. Due
to the problematic nature of the longer reading (i.e., what does deuteroprwtw actually mean?), intentional
excision of a questionable word equally may have occurred in the Alexandrian
archetype or otherwise unrelated witnesses. Certainly, whatever significance deuteroprwtw may have had to first-century readers
remains unclear (I suggest “second chief sabbath” — but even this is open to
interpretation).
Interestingly, similar problematic designations appear in the Septuagint: Psalm 23’s title speaks of “the first of the sabbaths”
(ths mias sabbatwn). Psalm 47’s title mentions “the second sabbath” (deutera
sabbatou); and Psalm 93’s
title reads “the fourth of the
sabbaths” (tetradi sabbatwn) — even though today we have no knowledge of
what these designations might mean, despite their unquestioned presence in the Septuagint. Also, Meyer (In Vol. 2, pages 47-50 of
his Handbook
to the Gospels of Mark and Luke) notes the similar deuteroescatos (penultimate, next to last) and deuterodekath (“the second tenth”; Jerome, ad Ez. 45). There thus is no reason why sabbatw deuteroprwtw may not have been understood by the
original first-century recipients of the Lukan narrative, even if we today are
uncertain.
In contrast, Metzger (in his Textual
Commentary) claims to
defend the Alexandrian omission of deuteroprwtw by suggesting “transcriptional
blunder” to have caused the rise of the Byzantine deuteroprwtw reading. Yet Metzger’s convoluted explanation
of such (taken from Westcott
& Hort and Meyer) is
highly problematic:
● Step 1: “Perhaps some copyist introduced prwtw as a correlative of en eterw sabbatw in ver. 6, and”
● Step 2: “a second copyist, in view of
[Lk] 4.31, wrote deuterw,
deleting prwtw by using dots over the letters — which
was the customary way of cancelling a word.”
● Step 3: “A subsequent transcriber, not
noticing the dots, mistakenly combined the two words into one, which he [then]
introduced into the text.”
● Step 4 (required, but not mentioned by
Metzger): further adjusting the orthography from the two-word form deuterw prwtw into the single-word form deuteroprwtw;
● Step 5 (also required but not mentioned by
Metzger): this highly
problematic reading then would not only be accepted as valid, but also
perpetuated without removal or correction among nearly all remaining manuscripts over the centuries of manual
transmission.
In addition to the above, the
second edition of Metzger’s Textual
Commentary offers an
alternative but even more convoluted explanation, “as Skeat has suggested” in
his “Final
Solution” article:
● Step 1: “by dittography the letters batw were added to sabbatw.”
● Step 2: “A later copyist interpreted the b as deuterw and the a as prwtw,
and”
● Step 3: “took tw as an indication that the adjective
was to agree with sabbatw.”
Step 4 (not stated, but obviously
required): In a resultant copy the presumably abbreviated b and a would have to be written in full form
as deuterw and prwtw;
● Step 5: (also not stated but
required): the extraneous tw would have to be removed;
● Step 6: (similarly): the two
words then would be combined into one, with the orthography corrected (as noted
above in Metzger’s Step 4); and then
● Step 7 (Metzger’s Step 5): almost
all remaining manuscripts then would accept this highly problematic reading and
perpetuate it without removal or correction over the centuries of manual
transmission].
(Notice that Skeat’s third step simply makes no sense, since the
result would have been en
sabbatw deuterw prwtw tw diaporeuesqai auton — a construction occurring nowhere
else in the New Testament or Septuagint (the usual expression requires en tw [or 2x in the LXX ama tw] + infinitive +
accusative subject of the infinitive). Yet Skeat
boldly claims that “Once it has been accepted that deuteroprwtw is a feasible expansion of BATW” everything else will
follow without complication.”)
Metzger’s explanation represents
a noble attempt to explain the rise of the more difficult deuteroprwtw by means of compounded transcriptional
errors — yet according to his or even Skeat’s hypotheses all initial steps
somehow would have to occur in a single exemplar manuscript, with a resultant
copy then containing a “clean” form of that “more difficult” reading. That
manuscript then becomes the progenitor of that which appears among almost all
other manuscripts throughout copying history without subsequent correction.
As I stated in 1993, “the logic simply does not follow.” Unless
there were some sort of formal revision process based upon that one particular
resultant manuscript, the odds against the massive perpetuation of presumably a
“nonsense” reading would be utterly overwhelming — especially since under
normal transmissional circumstances such a supposedly egregious error should
have been systematically and speedily corrected by the usual scribal diligence,
and thus lack perpetuation among most subsequent
copies.
In essence, the Metzger/Hort/Meyer explanations offer a perfect example for
Occam’s Razor: is it easier to accept a highly convoluted 5- or 7-step
process that requires a complex and problematic transmissional history?
Or is an assumption of either accidental haplography (skipping from -tw d-
to -tw d-) or deliberate removal of a single problematic word the
simpler solution? The answer would seem obvious to anyone not overly
enthralled with the Alexandrian text-type.
(More of this interview coming soon!)
(More of this interview coming soon!)
Excellent read! I am eagerly awaiting the transcription of the remainder of the interview. Well done! Very well done! :)
ReplyDeleteA very interesting read. Thank you for making this happen. I am anxiously waiting for the next part. Please inform how long will it take to be up.
ReplyDelete