Re: Did B really drop eremos due to harmonization?
- Thanks for the examples of B's harmonizations to Luke.
You've made the case that the shorter reading is more difficult.
This is a bit different from most people's analysis. Metzger, for
example, says that B dropped eremos for stylistic improvement.
No expert in Greek style, I would have thought that the shorter
reading was complete in and of itself: Your house is abandoned to
you, or, Your house is forsaken to you. With eremos, there is at
least some awkwardness: Your house is forsaken to you, desolate
(with desolate modifying the noun house, and not the verb forsaken).
A more perfect reading is reflected in Jer 22:5. If the scribe or
Matthew had been more fully influenced by this text, the passage
would read, Your house is forsaken to you unto desolation (eis
--- In email@example.com, "Wieland Willker"
> Matthew 23:38 IDOU AFIETAI UMIN O OIKOS UMWN **ERHMOS**.
> Thanks Jim for a sensible and thoughtful discussion of a very
> I agree that harmonization by omission is normally not a veryconvincing argument. On the other hand, the sentence is rather
catchy and memorable and perhaps the scribe added it from memory?
>11:8 in a similar construction, though not a harmonization.
> Jim Leonard wrote:
> > I have two questions regarding scribal tendencies in B.
> > Can anyone cite examples of B harmonizing to Luke or to
> > LXX, or of harmonizing by omission.
> A clear case would be:
> Mt 8:9 TASSOMENOS, harmonization to Lk 7:8
> Possible cases:
> Mt 16:20 could be a harmonization to Lk 9:21: EPETIMHSEN
> Mt 19:24 could be a harmonization to Lk 18:25: TRHMATOS
> Mt 19:29 could be a harmonization to Lk 18:30: POLLAPLASIONA
> Mk 1:34 could be a harmonization to Lk 4:41: AUTON CRISTON EINAI
> Mt 24:31 SALPIGGOS FWNHS MEGALHS perhaps LXX usage.
> Another variant that comes to mind is the omission of EISIN in Mt
>of ERHMOS by so many witnesses is quite difficult to explain.
> If the short form would be original in both Gospels, the addition
> The sentence without ERHMOS is not really clear. "your house isleft to you" is equivocal and makes no sense in context. Intended
is: "your house will be left". Compare also Jer 12:7. The addition
of ERHMOS then would be a natural clarification. hUMIN is Dativ
incommodi: "your house will be left behind to you (destroyed)".
> The overall meaning of both readings is basically equivalent. Butthe short reading is more difficult to understand.
> Best wishes
> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
> Textcritical commentary:
- The editor of mae-2 has concluded that it represents a text from a
primitive Hebrew version of Matthew. Interestingly, George Howard
makes similar claims about Shem Tob's 14th century Hebrew Matthew.
Neither claim seems to be convincing anyone, despite especially
tenacious efforts by Howard.
I wonder if Howard is analyzing mae-2 to find any commonality with
his Shem Tob :)
But otherwise, mae-2 seems to be an important ms, in that it is
purported to be the oldest extant ms in any language to much of
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "feeite_christian"
> Just read with interest the article herein on the relatively new
> Coptic ms of Matthew: mae-2.
> mae-1 supports the inclusion of eremos, and so we would expect, I
> think, that mae-2 would as well. However, this is one of the
> which is not catalogued in the overview article. Would someonekindly
> let me know?
> Jim Leonard
> Southwestern Pennsylvania