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 ...

Philip Sellew
Classical & Near Eastern Studies            voicemail:  612-625-2026
University of Minnesota                     FAX:        612-624-4894