Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] The western text of Luke - Longer or shorter?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... It would have been nice if either of your references had given the page numbers in Blass, but here is the relevant passage on p. 104: So in the Western
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 6 1:09 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:56 AM 3/6/2002 -0800, David Inglis wrote:
      >>3 I've seen references that Western Luke is both longer *and* shorter
      >>than other texts. I know about the Western non-interpolations (IMHO a
      >>horrible phrase), but overall which is the longer text?
      >
      >I've not yet been able to come up with a definitive answer, and instead have
      >found different people referring to Blass in support of BOTH positions.

      It would have been nice if either of your references had given the
      page numbers in Blass, but here is the relevant passage on p. 104:

      "So in the Western form of the Gospel and of the Acts, we may expect
      additions to the known text in the Acts, and omissions in the Gospel,
      and this is actually the case in D and its associates."

      The Leland Haines quote has apparently confounded the Gospel and Acts:

      >"Blass has suggested that Luke brought out two editions of his Gospel in
      >order to account for the Western text to be 8.5 percent longer than the
      >Alexandrian."

      Haines' failure to cite a page number or even footnote the Blass book,
      when he is otherwise good at documenting his sources, indicates that
      the Blass book was not at hand and he had to use his (faulty) memory.
      The 8.5% longer statistic is often given of the Acts, not the Gospel:
      e.g. Metzger, TEXTUAL COMMENTARY (2d ed. 1994: 223): "The Western text
      is nearly one-tenth longer than the Alexandrian text."

      The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, on the other hand,
      appears to correctly summarize Blass. (cf. Blass, p. 103: "the Romans
      got the later copy of the Gospel and the earlier copy of the Acts").

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • David Inglis
      ... have ... Stephen, Thank you for confirming what I believed to be the case. However, this brings up a problem. If Western Luke is shorter, how did the
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 6 7:26 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen Carlson wrote:

        > At 09:56 AM 3/6/2002 -0800, David Inglis wrote:
        > >>3 I've seen references that Western Luke is both longer *and* shorter
        > >>than other texts. I know about the Western non-interpolations (IMHO a
        > >>horrible phrase), but overall which is the longer text?
        > >
        > >I've not yet been able to come up with a definitive answer, and instead
        have
        > >found different people referring to Blass in support of BOTH positions.
        >
        > It would have been nice if either of your references had given the
        > page numbers in Blass, but here is the relevant passage on p. 104:
        >
        > "So in the Western form of the Gospel and of the Acts, we may expect
        > additions to the known text in the Acts, and omissions in the Gospel,
        > and this is actually the case in D and its associates."
        >
        > The Leland Haines quote has apparently confounded the Gospel and Acts:
        >
        > >"Blass has suggested that Luke brought out two editions of his Gospel in
        > >order to account for the Western text to be 8.5 percent longer than the
        > >Alexandrian."
        >
        > Haines' failure to cite a page number or even footnote the Blass book,
        > when he is otherwise good at documenting his sources, indicates that
        > the Blass book was not at hand and he had to use his (faulty) memory.
        > The 8.5% longer statistic is often given of the Acts, not the Gospel:
        > e.g. Metzger, TEXTUAL COMMENTARY (2d ed. 1994: 223): "The Western text
        > is nearly one-tenth longer than the Alexandrian text."
        >
        > The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, on the other hand,
        > appears to correctly summarize Blass. (cf. Blass, p. 103: "the Romans
        > got the later copy of the Gospel and the earlier copy of the Acts").

        Stephen,

        Thank you for confirming what I believed to be the case. However, this
        brings up a problem. If Western Luke is shorter, how did the Western
        Non-Interpolations ever get accepted as original? I always thought that it
        was because they 'went against the tendency' of D, because the Western text
        was, in general, deemed to be longer. However, if in fact Western Luke is
        shorter, then the short version of chapter 24 (containing the Western
        Non-Interpolations) is simply part of that trend, and should never have been
        accepted! It appears, therefore, as though D was treated as a 'unity' from
        a textual point of view, rather than the individual books in D being treated
        as different.

        I also have a problem with referring to D as a whole being Western. If we
        believe that there is a 'cause' or a particular 'process' associated with
        any particular text-type, then we should expect to see that the differences
        between the Western and Alexandrian versions of Luke have similar
        characteristics to the differences between the Western and Alexandrian
        versions of Acts. However, if in one case the 'process' results in a
        shorter text, and in the other a longer text (as is actually the case here),
        then surely we have to assume that they were actually created by different
        processes. In other words, if Luke in D is 'Western', then Acts can't be,
        and vice versa.

        Perhaps a better way of expressing what I'm trying to say is that D (and
        probably other 'Western' MSS) should in fact be regarded as containing three
        different text-types, one each for Luke, Acts, and Paul (if we include Dp).
        There MAY have been a common process involved in creating what is called the
        Western form of Luke, Acts, and Paul, but this common process must have only
        been part of the story. For example, even if one particular scribe was (for
        some reason) responsible for creating an overall 'Western' set of variants,
        there must have also been something else to account for Luke being shorter
        and Acts being longer. In my view that 'something else' is that variants of
        both Luke and Acts were created BEFORE the overall 'Westernizing process
        took place, and this is something I'm working on at the moment.

        I'd be interested in anyone's view on this.

        Dave Inglis
        david@...
        3538 o'Connor drive
        Lafayette, CA, USA




        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... It should be made clear that the Western Luke is shorter is Blass s characterization, primarily due to the so-called non-interpolations, in support of
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 6 8:44 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          At 07:26 PM 3/6/2002 -0800, David Inglis wrote:
          >Thank you for confirming what I believed to be the case. However, this
          >brings up a problem. If Western Luke is shorter, how did the Western
          >Non-Interpolations ever get accepted as original? I always thought that it
          >was because they 'went against the tendency' of D, because the Western text
          >was, in general, deemed to be longer. However, if in fact Western Luke is
          >shorter, then the short version of chapter 24 (containing the Western
          >Non-Interpolations) is simply part of that trend, and should never have been
          >accepted! It appears, therefore, as though D was treated as a 'unity' from
          >a textual point of view, rather than the individual books in D being treated
          >as different.

          It should be made clear that the "Western Luke is shorter" is Blass's
          characterization, primarily due to the so-called non-interpolations,
          in support of his theories. The Western text generally is somewhat
          expansionistic or wild, which is why Westcott and Hort treated the
          non-interpolations so seriously. With the discovery of the papyri,
          particularly P75, there has been less enthusiasm in following W&H
          on the originality of the non-interpolations.

          >I also have a problem with referring to D as a whole being Western. If we
          >believe that there is a 'cause' or a particular 'process' associated with
          >any particular text-type, then we should expect to see that the differences
          >between the Western and Alexandrian versions of Luke have similar
          >characteristics to the differences between the Western and Alexandrian
          >versions of Acts. However, if in one case the 'process' results in a
          >shorter text, and in the other a longer text (as is actually the case here),
          >then surely we have to assume that they were actually created by different
          >processes. In other words, if Luke in D is 'Western', then Acts can't be,
          >and vice versa.

          D is the only extensive Greek Western witness for the Gospels and Acts.
          It is considered "Western" because it agrees with the Old Latin (pre-
          Vulgate) manuscripts and with Western fathers. "Western" is a bit of
          a misnomer because some of the Syriac versions are also considered
          Western. I've never found the notion of a text-type being the result
          of a 'process' to be a particularly helpful way of looking at text-types.
          I'd rather view each text-type as exemplifying its own lineage, i.e.
          in genealogical terms, but the majority of critics seem to define a
          text-type quantitatively (e.g. at least 70% agreement and a gap of
          10% with non-members).

          >Perhaps a better way of expressing what I'm trying to say is that D (and
          >probably other 'Western' MSS) should in fact be regarded as containing three
          >different text-types, one each for Luke, Acts, and Paul (if we include Dp).
          >There MAY have been a common process involved in creating what is called the
          >Western form of Luke, Acts, and Paul, but this common process must have only
          >been part of the story. For example, even if one particular scribe was (for
          >some reason) responsible for creating an overall 'Western' set of variants,
          >there must have also been something else to account for Luke being shorter
          >and Acts being longer. In my view that 'something else' is that variants of
          >both Luke and Acts were created BEFORE the overall 'Westernizing process
          >took place, and this is something I'm working on at the moment.

          Because each book (of the gospels) and each division of the N.T. circulated
          separately, text-types are only really commensurate with n the same book
          or division. It is not uncommon for MSS to switch text-types in different
          books (or even within books: codex Sinaiticus Aleph/01 in John is Western
          for the first few chapters, then switches to Alexandrian). Nevertheless,
          D (Codex Bezae) remains close to the Old Latins in both the Gospels and
          Acts, so it is convenient to continue to refer to D as Western whereever
          it is attested.

          As for Luke being shorter, see above. As for Acts being longer, Metzger in
          his TEXTUAL COMMENTARY surveys many theories, so that is probably the best
          place to start.

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • David Inglis
          ... variants, ... shorter ... of ... Gospels ... freely ... Wieland, If I understand you correctly, most of the variants in D were created by a single person
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 9 12:04 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In synoptic-l@y..., "Wieland Willker" <willker@c...> wrote:
            > David Inglis wrote:
            > >For example, even if one particular scribe was (for
            > >some reason) responsible for creating an overall 'Western' set of
            variants,
            > >there must have also been something else to account for Luke being
            shorter
            > >and Acts being longer. In my view that 'something else' is that variants
            of
            > >both Luke and Acts were created BEFORE the overall 'Westernizing process
            > >took place, and this is something I'm working on at the moment.
            >
            > The person who is responsible for the majority of variants in D was a
            > harmonizer. He added and omitted to harmonize. Besides the canonical
            Gospels
            > he had other sources at his disposal, probably a harmony, evtl. the
            > Diatessaron. This harmonizing process is probably responsible for many of
            > the omissions.
            > Since in Acts he had nothing to harmonize it with, he could work more
            freely
            > without particular reasons to omit.

            Wieland,

            If I understand you correctly, most of the variants in D were created by a
            single person ("a harmonizer. He added ..."), and presumably this took place
            no earlier than the late 2nd century, otherwise it is difficult to see how a
            Gospel harmony would have been available. However, this raises some
            questions:

            1) If a late 2nd century harmonizer created the majority of the variants in
            D, how could these same variants have been known to Polycarp and Marcion in
            the first half of the 2nd century?

            2) I don't understand your comment about Acts. I don't see why someone who
            felt free to add 10% more text to Acts would not feel free to do the same to
            the Gospels, whatever sources he had available. Also, you haven't explained
            why the harmonizer would add so much to Acts, but also REMOVE so much from
            Luke (e.g. the Western Non-Interpolations in chapter 24).

            I simply find it very difficult to understand how the Western forms of both
            Luke and Acts could possibly have been created by one person in the way you
            describe. As you sound very sure of your position, I would be interested in
            knowing what evidence you have, and how you came to these conclusions.

            Regards,

            Dave Inglis
            david@...
            3538 O'Connor Drive
            Lafayette, CA, USA



            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.