RE: Text of Matt 11:9 cont'd (longish)
> > Since we know
> > nothing about Q-Mt, and do not know how to offer any control of such a
> > discussion, I leave it out of the equation.
> This seems a bit strong: on one level, Q-Mt is more or less the Q
> verses used by Matthew minus known Matthean editorial or dictional
> preferences. What we are now calling Q-Mat is to me more or less what
> you have meant whhen you wonder what Matthew did with HIS TEXT OF Q.
> Thus Q-Matt MEANS the form of Q known to Matthew. You do refer to such
> a beast quite frequently, directly or by implication, and so you (and
> all of us) must, I suppose.
Sure, theoretically I agree with you, any time I speak of "Matthew's
text of Q" I must by definition mean "Q-Mt." But "Q-Mt" is more loaded
than that, too. By implication and usage, "Q-Mt" is not just a
lost manuscript but a problem that makes reconstructing Q very
difficult, since it must have differed from Luke's copy of Q due to
More substantively: Does it not contradict your earlier position to say
that we CAN know about Q-Mt, namely, it is "the Q verses used by Matthew
minus known Matthean editorial or dictional preferences"? I thought
that you were trying to be cautious about making inferences from
preference. We've run into this problem several times in Q
reconstruction--something that is suspected of being a Mattheanism is
also clearly attested in "minimal Q,", so how do we know if its
existence is due to Q or due to Matthew? If we eliminate "known
Mattheanisms" from Matthew's text of Q, we will probably eliminate much
of Q-Mt as well.
> Maybe it's "arbitrary" to employ preferences systematically?? At least
> arbitrary in any given instance, not presumably as a method over all.
Fair enough. But what better choice do we have? That's a serious
question. I don't trust "preferences" when other evidence is weightier,
but in these borderline cases I do trust preferences, knowing that I
will therefore get the wrong answer a certain percentage of the time.
It's Luther's attitude--"sin boldly." :-)
> Do we have evidence that scribes are alert to parallelism and/or to
> maintaining it??
I guess I'll have to nail some down before our next IQP meeting. :-)
My training in text criticism is several years behind me now, so I'm
going on vague memories and "gut instinct." I'll have to beef that up
before we discuss this pericope as a group.
> > Would it not be fair to say that most of
> > the scribes had the attitudes of clerks rather than poets? Dare we use
> > that observation to make text-critical judg(e)ments?
> I like this formulation.
I'm glad you like the formulation, since that means that it probably
sits with your "gut instinct" as well. At least until the age of
illuminated manuscripts, at least, when manuscript copying entered the
world of art. That would bolster my suspicion that a few scribes opted
for clarity rather than poetry and changed IDEIN PROFHTHN into PROFHTHN
IDEIN, and that Matthew would have kept Q's IDEIN PROFHTHN and not
changed the poetic into the unambiguous. But you're right that before
200 the whole game was wide open. Does that mean that we have to remain
undecided on this point?
Gos. Thom. 78 is parallel to this. Thomas understands the TIS as "why?"
rather than "what?" Can we infer anything about Q 7 from this, Phil? I
know that it's an interest of yours. ;-)
Of the two readings in Matt 11:9, I really would like people's opinions
on which reading would be more difficult for whom, and which one best
explains the other.
Sterling G. Bjorndahl, bjorndahl@Augustana.AB.CA or email@example.com
Augustana University College, Camrose, Alberta, Canada (403) 679-1100
When dealing with computers, a little paranoia is usually appropriate.