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

Clement's Text of Mark - Six Head-to-Head Comparisons

Expand Messages
  • james_snapp_jr
    Let s make a head-to-head comparison of Clement s agreements with the flagship witnesses of the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western text-types in the Gospel of
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 22, 2011
      Let's make a head-to-head comparison of Clement's agreements with the flagship witnesses of the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western text-types in the Gospel of Mark. This comparison has some special limitations, since Cosaert reckons that Clement makes only one verifiable quotation (at 8:38) from outside chapter 10, and since Clement's extensive quotation from chapter 10 is notoriously loose. In terms of its inherent ability to reveal the character of Clement's text of Mark, the available evidence is not very promising at all. In Cosaert's analysis of Matthew, he more or less excluded Codex A from consideration because it is so lacunose; yet Codex A retains more of Matthew than Clement's citations, adaptations, and allusions contain of Mark. With such limited data, whatever conclusions are drawn about Clement's text of Mark as a whole must be tentative. Nevertheless, here are the comparisons.

      LIST ONE - Places in Mark Where Clement Agrees With Byz and Disagrees With B

      (1) 10:19 - Clem and TR have MH MOIXEUSHS MH FONEUSHS; B transposes
      (2) 10:20 - Clem and TR have APOKRIQEIS; B does not
      (3) 10:21 - Clem and TR have EN SOI; B has EN SE
      (4) 10:24 - Clem and RP-2005 (but not TR) have TOUS PEPOIQOTAS EPI CRHMASIN (the TR and D have TOIS between EPI and CRHMASIN); B does not have any of this.
      (5) 10:27 - Clem and TR have DE; B does not [This could be considered a three-way disagreement in which Clement has O DE, TR has DE, and B omits, but I separated the inclusion of O as a reading supported by neither TR nor B.]
      (6) 10:28 - Clem and TR have O PETROS LEGEIN AUTW; B transposes
      (7) 10:28 - Clem and TR have HKOKOUQHSAMEN; B has HKOLOUQHKAMEN
      (8) 10:29 - Clem and TR have APOKRIQEIS [Cosaert erroneously does not include TR in the list of witnesses agreeing with Clement in this reading.]
      (9) 10:29 - Clem and RP-2005 (text) has ENEKEN after ENEKEN EMOU KAI; B (and the TR as represented by Steph. 1550) does not.

      That's a total of nine agreements in Mark between Clement and Byz against B (or eight, if one does not include #5, where Clem reads O DE and TR reads DE and B has neither). If Cosaert had just taken RP-2005 in hand, he would have noticed agreements #4 and 9; unfortunately he did not. When so few readings are involved, this sort of thing can have a considerable impact.)

      LIST TWO: Places in Mark Where Clement Agrees With B and Disagrees With Byz

      (1) 10:19 - Clem and B do not have (after PSEUDOMARTURHSHS) MH APOSTERHSHS; TR has MH APOSTERHSHS
      (2) 10:21 - At the end of the verse, after MOI, Clem and B do not have ARAS TON STAURON; TR has ARAS TON STAURON
      (3) 10:28 - Clem and B have HKOLOUQHKAMEN; TR has -SAMEN
      (4) 10:29 - Clem and B do not have EIPEN; TR has EIPEN
      (5) 10:31 - Clem and B have OI before ESCATOI; RP-2005 (text) does not [RP-2005 and TR have OI before ESCATOI in the margin] [A and Pi also do not have OI before ESCATOI]

      That's a total of five agreements in Mark between Clem and B against Byz -- one of which is a reading for which Byz is divided. (Of these five agreements between Clem and B, NA27 adopts #2, #3, #4 and #5 as original.)

      LIST THREE: Places in Mark Where Clement Agrees With Byz And Disagrees With Aleph

      (1) 10:19 - Clem and TR have MH MOICEUSHS MH FONEUSHS; Aleph has MH FONEUSHS (without MH MOICEUSHS)
      (2) 10:19 - Clem and TR have MHTERA without SOU; Aleph adds SOU
      (3) 10:20 - Clem and TR have APOKRIQEIS; Aleph does not have APOKRIQEIS
      (4) 10:21 - Clem and TR have EN SOI; Aleph has ETI EN SE
      (5) 10:23 - Clem and TR have LEGEI; Aleph has ELEGEN
      (6) 10:25 - Clem and TR have THS TRUMALIAS; Aleph has TRHMATOS
      (7) 10:27 - Clem and TR have DE; Aleph does not have DE [but this may be considered a three-way disagreement, since Clem's full reading is O DE]
      (8) 10:28 - Clem and TR have O PETROS LEGEIN AUTW; Aleph transposes
      (9) 10:28 - Clem and TR have SOI; Aleph adds TI ARA ESTAI HMIN
      (10) 10:29 - Clem and RP-2005 have APOKROQEIS (TR: APOKROQEIS DE); Aleph has EFH AUTW
      (11) 10:29 - Clem and RP-2005 (text) have EMOU KAI ENEKEN; Aleph omits
      [For 10:31, Cosaert lists TR in support of OI before ESCATOI, and this is true of Steph. 1550; however, RP-2005 (text) does not include OI. Byz is divided at this point.]

      That's a total of 11 agreements in Mark between Clem and TR against Aleph.

      LIST FOUR: Places in Mark Where Clement Agrees with Aleph and Disagrees with Byz

      (1) 10:21 - At the end of the verse, after MOI, Clem and Aleph do not have ARAS TON STAURON; TR has ARAS TON STAURON
      (2) 10:27 - Clem and Aleph have EIPEN; TR has LEGEI
      (3) 10:29 - Clem and Aleph do not have EIPEN; TR has EIPEN

      That's a total of three agreements in Mark between Clem and Aleph against Byz. (Of these three, NA27 adopts #1 and #3 as original.)

      If we combine List 2 and List 4, we see the following points at which Clem agrees with a reading of B and/or Aleph against Byz:

      (1) 10:21 - Clem does not support the Byz reading (after MOI) ARAS TON STAURON
      (2) 10:27 - Clem does not support the Byz reading LEGEI
      (3) 10:28 - Clem does not support the Byz reading HKOLOUQHSAMEN
      (4) 10:29 - Clem does not support the Byz reading EIPEN
      (5) 10:19 - Clem does not support the Byz reading MH APOSTERHSHS (after PSEUDOMARTURHSHS)
      (6) 10:31 - Clem does not support the omission of OI before ESCATOI [Byz is divided at this point]

      So, if all non-Byzantine readings in either Aleph or B or both in Mark are regarded as Alexandrian readings, Clement supports a total of six Alexandrian readings in Mark (of which, four are adopted in NA27 as original).

      If B is taken as the definitive representative of the Alexandrian Text, then Clement and Byz agree against the Alexandrian Text nine times. If Aleph is taken as the definitive representative of the Alexandrian Text, then Clement and Byz agree against the Alexandrian Text 11 times. Either way, Clement's text of Mark agrees with Byz about twice as often as it agrees with the Alexandrian Text.

      Now let's compose two more lists. This time, Byz and D will go head-to-head.

      LIST FIVE: Here are the places in Mark where Clem Agrees With TR and Disagrees With D:

      (1) 8:38 - Clem and TR have GAR; D has DE (categorized as genetically insignificant by Cosaert)
      (2) 8:38 - Clem and TR have EPAISCUNQH ME; D has EPESCUNQHSETAI EME (categorized as genetically insignificant by Cosaert)
      (3) 10:19 - Clem and TR have SOU; D does not
      (4) 10:22 - Clem and TR have EPI TW LOGW; D supports EPI TOUTWN LOGW (listed as "(D)" by Cosaert)
      (5) 10:22 - Clem and TR have KRHMATA POLLA; D transposes
      (6) 10:22 - Clem and TR have STUGNASAS; D has ESTUGNASEN (categorized as genetically insignificant by Cosaert)
      (7) 10:24 - Clem and TR have MAQHTAI; D has MAQHTAI AUTOU
      (8) 10:24 - Clem and RP-2005 have EPI CRHMASIN; D has EPI TOIS CRHMASIN (mishandled by Cosaert, who neglected RP-2005 in favor of TR and treated D's reading as if it is identical to the non-inclusion of TOIS)
      (9) 10:25 - Clem and TR have THS TRUMALIAS; D has TRUMALIDOS
      (10) 10:27 - Clem and TR have ANQRWPOIS; D adds TOUTO
      (11) 10:28 - Clem and RP-2005 have HRXATO; D has KAI HRXATO (Cosaert mentions this in a footnote and considers it genetically insignificant even though D is supported by OL a b k)
      (12) 10:28 - Clem and RP-2005 have O PETROS; D has PETROS (Cosaert does not include this variant, as if D's reading is close enough)
      (13) 10:28 - Clem and TR have HKOLOUQHSAMEN; D has HKOLOUQHKAMEN
      (14) 10:29 - Clem and RP-2005 have EMOU KAI ENEKEN; D has EMOU H ENEKEN
      (15) 10:30 - Clem and TR have NUN; D omits

      So there are 15 places in Mark where Clement agrees with TR against D. Three of them are categorized by Cosaert as genetically insignificant, but since they are real, I have included them in the comparison.

      LIST SIX: Here are the places in Mark where Clem agrees with D and Disagrees With TR:

      (1) 10:17 - Clem and D have LEGWN; TR does not.
      (2) 10:20 - Clem and D have PANTA TAUTA; TR has TAUTA PANTA (tranposition)
      (3) 10:20 - Clem and D have EFULAXA; TR has EFULAXAMHN
      (4) 10:21 - Clem and D have MOI; TR has MOI ARAS TON STAURON
      (5) 10:25 - Clem and D have H PLOUSIOS; TR has H PLOUSION
      (6) 10:27 - Clem and D have ADUNATON [ESTIN]; TR has ADUNATON ALL OU PARA QEW
      (7) 10:27 - Clem and D have PARA [DE TW] QEW DUNATON; D has PANTA GAR DUNATA ESTIN PARA TW QEW (This is actually a three-way disagreement -- Clem has PARA QEW DUNATON; D has ESTIN DE TW QEW -- and it probably should not be included in the analysis, especially since the same harmonization that caused the preceding variant is what caused this one. Nevertheless, I will include it.)
      (8) 10:29 - Clem and D do not have EIPEN; TR has EIPEN (after IHSOUS)

      So there are eight places in Mark where Clement agrees with TR against D. (Variants #6 and #7 are really two parts of one variant, so the number should probably be reduced to seven.)

      Out of the 23 places where Clement agrees with either Byz or D but not both, Clement agrees with Byz 15 times (65%) and with D 8 times (35%).

      A comparison of Clement's eight (or seven) agreements with D to NA27 shows the following agreement:

      (1) 10:17 - NA27 agrees with Byz against Clem and D
      (2) 10:20 - NA27 agrees with Byz against Clem and D
      (2) 10:20 - NA27 agrees with Byz against Clem and D
      (3) 10:21 - NA27 agrees with Clem and D against Byz (which has ARAS TON STAURON)
      (4) 10:25 - NA27 agrees with Byz against Clem and D
      (5) 10:27 - NA27 agrees with RP-2005 (ALL' OU PARA QEW after ADUNATON) against Clem and D
      (6) 10:27 - NA27 does not agree with Clem and D and NA27 does not agree with Byz either.
      (7) 10:29 - NA27 agrees with Clem and D against Byz (which has EIPEN after IHSOUS)

      So, of the eight (or seven) places where Clement agrees with D against Byz, the compilers of NA27 considered Clement's text to be the original text in two places (10:20's non-inclusion of ARAS TON STAURON, and 10:29's non-inclusion of EIPEN), and corrupted in the remaining six or five.

      Let's see how Clement's agreements with Byz against D compare in in NA27:

      (1) 8:38 - NA27 agrees with Clem and TR against D
      (2) 8:38 - NA27 agrees with Clem and TR against D
      (3) 10:19 - NA27 agrees with Clem and TR against D
      (4) 10:22 - NA27 agrees with Clem and TR against D
      (5) 10:22 - NA27 agrees with Clem and TR against D
      (6) 10:22 - NA27 agrees with Clem and TR against D
      (7) 10:24 - NA27 agrees with Clem and TR against D
      (8) 10:24 - NA27 does not agree with Clem and RP-2005, and NA27 does not agree with D either
      (9) 10:25 - NA27 agrees with Clem and TR against D
      (10) 10:27 - NA27 agrees with Clem and TR against D
      (11) 10:28 - NA27 agrees with Clem and RP-2005 against D
      (12) 10:28 - NA27 does not agree with Clem and RP-2005, and NA27 does not agree with D either
      (13) 10:28 - NA27 agrees with D against Clem and TR
      (14) 10:29 - NA27 agrees with Clem and RP-2005 against D
      (15) 10:30 - NA27 agrees with Clem and TR against D

      So, of the 15 places where Clement agrees with Byz against D, the compilers of NA27 considered Clement's text to be original in 12 places, and corrupted in three places -- 10:24 (where NA27, omitting TOUS PEPOIQOTAS EPI CRHMASIN, does not agree with Clem or Byz or D), 10:28 (where NA27, transposing, does not agree with Clem or Byz or D), and 10:28 (where D agrees with B in the reading HKOLOUQHKAMEN). This means that in the judgment of the compilers of NA27, where Clement disagrees with Byz and agrees with D, readings in Mark shared by Clement and D are never correct unless they agrees with Alex.

      Now, I wonder about something. In NA27, 12 agreements in Mark between Clem and Byz are considered original in NA27. I wonder how many agreements in Mark between Clem and anything-that-is-not-Byz are considered original in NA27. To put it another way: in the judgment of the compilers of NA27, when Clement disagrees with Byz, how often does he adopt an original reading? If we consider the readings where Clement and D disagree with Byz, along with the agreements between Clement and Aleph against Byz, along with the agreements between Clement and B against Byz, how many places are there where Clement's disagreement with Byz is considered original by the compilers of NA27? Apparently, just the following:

      (1) 10:21 - NA27 supports the non-inclusion of ARAS TON STAURON
      (2) 10:28 - NA27 supports the reading HKOLOUQHKAMEN (instead of -SAMEN)
      (3) 10:29 - NA27 supports the non-inclusion of EIPEN
      (4) 10:31 - NA27 supports the inclusion of OI before ESCATOI (Byz is divided at this point, and NA27 has OI within single brackets)

      Four. Just four? Would anyone care to check this?

      Finally, I have a suggestion: instead of calling Aleph/B/P75 "Primary Alexandrian" and calling L et al "Secondary Alexandrian," the first group's text should be called Alexandrian, and the second group's text should be called Sub-Alexandrian. (This way writers can avoid referring to "Primary Secondary Alexandrian readings" and such.)

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.