Re: Text critical question in Matt 11:9 (longish)
Sterling, I believe that I understand your quandary. BUT, don't we have to
address the issue of the text of Matthew separately from the question of the Q
reconstruction? At least notionally? It seems that you are combining these two
goals in your posting of Friday Dec. 3rd. Your various hypotheses all involve
the (reconstructed) Q text, not simply the text of Matthew. I know that these
two things are connected, but the way(s) we decide the two questions are
different. I believe that it's dangerous when we use Q-reconstruction
hypotheses to reconstruct the text of Matthew -- this is simply too circular a
As to the text of Matt 11:9, I would submit that on _internal_ grounds, your
reading (2) is the preferable (ALLA TI ECHLQATE? PROFHTHN IDEIN ktl). It is
clearly the _lectio difficilior_, for one thing. I think the objections you
list to your hypothesis #1a are pretty strong. The objections to ##1b and 2a
fall into the category of preferences, and of course, as we have discussed in Q
project meetings, in Q reconstruction and in text-criticism, too rigid an
application of preferences eventually removes cases where the author deviates
from his or her usual practices.
On _external_ grounds, the very fact of the existence of the variant is
interesting to me. Why does it exist at all if it is not "original"?? (by which
of course I mean original in Matthew's text). This I think is an important
question for you to answer.
Cheers, holiday-related and otherwise ...
Classical & Near Eastern Studies voicemail: 612-625-2026
University of Minnesota FAX: 612-624-4894