Tricky Variant in Gal. 4:7... Need Help

[Greektim]

Here is another scenario, provided by my favorite textual critic. First of all, note the readings in parallel.

Byz ωστε ουκετι ει δουλος αλλα υιος ει δε υιος καικληρονομος θεου δια χριστου
Alex ωστε ουκετι ει δουλος αλλα υιος ει δε υιος καικληρονομος δια θεου

Note the underlined parts. This could be a scribal error in which the scribe's attention jumped from upsilon to upsilon, assuming what is called a nomina sacra abbreviation (sacred name), θυδιαχυ.

As my friend wrote me, "This would result in κληρονομος θυ, which would make sense as is, but if the scribe also in his mind remembered something about δια ... well, then, the needed 'correction' would be obvious."

Who is that critic? Did you ask Dr. Robinson?

I just don't find this explanation as convincing. It seems far easier to expand "through God" to "of God through Christ" rather than accidentally condense "of God through Christ" to "through God". I considered the upsilon endings and maybe it was a homoteleteuton. But there is also a transposition of the preposition which, in my mind, negates the homoteleteuton theory.

 

[Greektim]

"Further testimony on behalf of διὰ θεοῦ is to be found in external evidence: The witnesses with this phrase are among the most important in the NT (Ì46 א* A B C* 33 1739*vid lat bo Cl)." The external evidence supports "through God."

Yes... you quoted the NET above which already duplicated what my OP had.

However, this is from an eclectic model of textual criticism. I find that model to be lacking. And here is one example.

The MS support for the "through God" reading is largely localized in the Alexandrian text. It does have some Western support with the old latin translations. The "of God through Christ" reading is far more diverse. It contains some weak Alexandrian miniscules, but also has the weightier Western MSS, along with the Byzantine. So there is far more geographical diversity.

Further, when you account for the other readings, which are similar to the "of God through Christ" reading, the geographical diversity is strengthened. The "through Christ" reading has all 3 text types attesting it (though it could be argued either way how this variant arose, either from "through God" or "of God through Christ". Here, homoteleteuton seems far more likely and thus it came from "of God through Christ".) The "of God through Jesus Christ" clearly stemmed from the slightly shorter "of God through Christ". And this reading also has all 3 text types attesting to it as well.

All in all, it seems that geographical dispersion puts the weight of the argument in favor of the Byzantine reading "of God through Christ."

 

[HankD]

Who is that critic? Did you ask Dr. Robinson?

I just don't find this explanation as convincing. It seems far easier to expand "through God" to "of God through Christ" rather than accidentally condense "of God through Christ" to "through God". I considered the upsilon endings and maybe it was a homoteleteuton. But there is also a transposition of the preposition which, in my mind, negates the homoteleteuton theory.

Hi Greektim, if one follows the W&H theory that the more difficult variant text is most likely the correct text then wouldn't it follow that the more difficult variant solution is most likely the correct solution?

If you respond "no" then of what value is the W&H variant text theory not being a universal principle?

How much better then the Burgon Seven Tests of Truth?

Thanks.

HankD

 

[Greektim]

Hi Greektim, if one follows the W&H theory that the more difficult variant text is most likely the correct text then wouldn't it follow that the more difficult variant solution is most likely the correct solution?

If you respond "no" then of what value is the W&H variant text theory not being a universal principle?

How much better then the Burgon Seven Tests of Truth?

Thanks.

HankD

I'm not sure you are following my way of doing textual criticism. JoJ was referring to his favorite textual critic. So likely it was a Byzantine adherent like Dr. Robinson. I espouse to a Sturzian style of textual criticism. So not a reasoned eclectic, not a W&H theory, not a Burgon theory, and not a Byzantine priority.

That said, I do see value in the idea of the best reading which gives rise to the others. How one goes about that w/ internal evidence is typically paradoxical (harder reading usually goes against the author's style; so which do you trust?) and only corroborative not probative in its usefulness. Thus I rely on more objective support from the external evidence through geographical diversity.

 

[HankD]

I'm not sure you are following my way of doing textual criticism. JoJ was referring to his favorite textual critic. So likely it was a Byzantine adherent like Dr. Robinson. I espouse to a Sturzian style of textual criticism. So not a reasoned eclectic, not a W&H theory, not a Burgon theory, and not a Byzantine priority.

That said, I do see value in the idea of the best reading which gives rise to the others. How one goes about that w/ internal evidence is typically paradoxical (harder reading usually goes against the author's style; so which do you trust?) and only corroborative not probative in its usefulness. Thus I rely on more objective support from the external evidence through geographical diversity.

Oh, OK Tim,

I fully agree on the trust issue.

You must know that Sturz authored (perhaps more than one):

Sturz: Byzantine Readings with Early Papyrus Support.
The Byzantine text-type and New Testament textual criticism.

Not that anyone should put all their eggs in his one basket but he has show that there are many Byzantine readings distinctly aligned with the Early Papyri.

As to our passage in dispute, I do not have any of his publications as to its particular alignment.


HankD

 

[Craigbythesea]

The option I like is #5 "of God through Christ" (though why you added "[an heir]" in brackets to 5 and then normal in 6 but not 1-4 is a bit strange).


I have a hard time seeing this getting reduced intentionally or accidentally to "through God". "Christ" would have to be omitted and "God" transposed after the preposition "through". I can't see how a scribe could do this accidentally. That is what I meant by not be academically satisfying.


#2 clearly arose from #1 intentionally.


#6 is taken from Romans


#5 has good MSS support and explain readings #3 and #4 (though #3 could be an intentional change from #1 as well).


So the real issue is between #1 and #5.

I can make sense how you can go from #1 to #5. But the external support is more localized for #1.

I can't make good sense how you can go from #5 to #1. But the external support is more geographically spread out for #5.

I agree except for the issue of the geographical spread which I do not see as that much of a problem. However, I believe that it is most likely that Paul wrote δια θεου for his theological reasons , but that many scribes intentionally changed θεου to χριστου (using one variant or another) for their theological reasons rather than by a mistake due to the homoteleteuton or anything else.

Paul’s theological reason could have been simply that he realized that the deity of Christ was an issue that was much less settled in the minds of the Galatians than it was in his own mind. Therefore, he cited God, rather than Christ Jesus, as the source through which the Galatians were no longer slaves but sons (but why did he shift from the plural second person in v. 6 to the singular second person in verse 7 and then back to the plural second person in v. 8?). The scribes copying his letter, however, may have had a firm belief in the deity of Christ and therefore saw no need to cite God rather than Christ Jesus—and therefore changed θεου to χριστου (using one variant or another as they saw fit).

Perhaps, however, a desire for consistency may have had a motivating influence on the part of either Paul or some of the scribes,

4 οτε δε ηλθεν το πληρωμα του χρονου εξαπεστειλεν ο θεος τον υιον αυτου γενομενον εκ γυναικος γενομενον υπο νομον
5 ινα τους υπο νομον εξαγοραση ινα την υιοθεσιαν απολαβωμεν
6 οτι δε εστε υιοι εξαπεστειλεν ο θεος το πνευμα του υιου αυτου εις τας καρδιας ημων κραζον αββα ο πατηρ
7 ωστε ουκετι ει δουλος αλλα υιος ει δε υιος και κληρονομος δια θεου
8 αλλα τοτε μεν ουκ ειδοτες θεον εδουλευσατε τοις φυσει μη ουσιν θεοις
9 νυν δε γνοντες θεον μαλλον δε γνωσθεντες υπο θεου πως επιστρεφετε παλιν επι τα ασθενη και πτωχα στοιχεια οις παλιν ανωθεν δουλευσαι θελετε

Or perhaps, in verse 6, Paul is referring to God having baptized the Galatians in the Holy Spirit, and therefore it was through God that the Galatians were no longer slaves but sons, and if sons then an heirs.

 

[Van]

At the end of the day, "through God" is the most likely variant. Paul seems to be referring to God sending the Holy Spirit to indwell believers. There is no rational way to see how "of God through Christ" would be changed to "through God."

 

[Van]

I have an example for all those trying to justify going with the easier reading as a general principle. Take a gander at Deuteronomy 31:1. Somewhere along the line "finished" was inadvertently changed to went. Thus to go with the harder reading (went) is absurd, since the change was inadvertent. However only the dreaded NLT comes close.

 

[John of Japan]

Who is that critic? Did you ask Dr. Robinson?

Sorry, I don't divulge my sources in the area of Greek. I actually know quite a few Greek profs. (And if any of them wanted to be quoted here they would post themselves, I'm sure.)

I just don't find this explanation as convincing. It seems far easier to expand "through God" to "of God through Christ" rather than accidentally condense "of God through Christ" to "through God". I considered the upsilon endings and maybe it was a homoteleteuton. But there is also a transposition of the preposition which, in my mind, negates the homoteleteuton theory.

As one who has translated the entire NT into Japanese and a large percentage into English, and bungled all the way through, let me assure you that any transcription error whatever at any place in the NT is entirely possible.

 

[John of Japan]

Who is that critic? Did you ask Dr. Robinson?

I just don't find this explanation as convincing. It seems far easier to expand "through God" to "of God through Christ" rather than accidentally condense "of God through Christ" to "through God". I considered the upsilon endings and maybe it was a homoteleteuton. But there is also a transposition of the preposition which, in my mind, negates the homoteleteuton theory.

Well, Dr. Robinson said to go ahead and admit that he is my source. Furthermore, he elaborates on the process that could produce the Alexandrian reading here:

"What I didn't say (but what he should know well) is the multiple-step process involved in copying (from Metzger) involving first reading the text, then holding such in memory, then writing etc. -- each of which is subject to its own level of error. So if the text were first misread by homoioteleuton, but the DIA still part of what was held in memory, then the mentally based "repair" during copying easily could result in the Alexandrian reading."

Then Dr. Robinson gives another possibility:

"Of course, it also could be the case that the Alex reading was the result of deliberate editorial stylistic revision, in which case other factors come into play. For example, contextually "God" is primary and occurs frequently within this closely-knit section (Gal 4.4, 6, 7, 8, 9), and God is particularly noted as the source of inheritance and sonship; on the other hand, "Christ" otherwise is basically absent between Gal 3.29 and 4.14. This consideration easily could lead the Alexandrian revisers to think that inclusion of CRISTOS at Gal 4.7 was an interpolation, thus resulting in its excision."

 

[Greektim]

Well, Dr. Robinson said to go ahead and admit that he is my source. Furthermore, he elaborates on the process that could produce the Alexandrian reading here:

"What I didn't say (but what he should know well) is the multiple-step process involved in copying (from Metzger) involving first reading the text, then holding such in memory, then writing etc. -- each of which is subject to its own level of error. So if the text were first misread by homoioteleuton, but the DIA still part of what was held in memory, then the mentally based "repair" during copying easily could result in the Alexandrian reading."

Then Dr. Robinson gives another possibility:

"Of course, it also could be the case that the Alex reading was the result of deliberate editorial stylistic revision, in which case other factors come into play. For example, contextually "God" is primary and occurs frequently within this closely-knit section (Gal 4.4, 6, 7, 8, 9), and God is particularly noted as the source of inheritance and sonship; on the other hand, "Christ" otherwise is basically absent between Gal 3.29 and 4.14. This consideration easily could lead the Alexandrian revisers to think that inclusion of CRISTOS at Gal 4.7 was an interpolation, thus resulting in its excision."

I love that man. What great mind and heart.

I know his explanation is what you were saying already, John. But I'm still on the fence of whether this is a legit explanation. In fact, I like his second possibility bearing in mind that dia with "God" was used back in 1:1 (although Longenecker, from Bligh, offered a good explanation as to what was going on with the entire phrase δια ιησου χριστου και θεου πατρος which would mean that Paul did not have dia in mind in 1:1 for theou). Bruce thinks the dia indicates ultimate agency for both Jesus and God in 1:1. Therefore, the same could be true of dia theou in 4:7, thus removing any seeming theological conflict. Add to that what Dr. Robinson mentioned above, and I suppose that is plausible.