Eshbaugh -Textual Variants Galatians Theology P46

8/20/2019 Eshbaugh -Textual Variants Galatians Theology P46

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eshbaugh-textual-variants-galatians-theology-p46 1/12

60

90. Ibid. p.186. In fact, of course, the problem is of preciselythe same proportions: a minor agreement on the 2-document

hypothesis becomes an instance where Mark has chosen to ignorethe common witness of both his sources on the Griesbach hypothesis; ;a common omission

byMatthew and Luke becomes an addition

byMark

to them. Either way an explanation is required.

91. Ibid. p.201.

92. Usually for reasons similar to those given by Kümmel,Introduction pp.58-60.

93. Wilke, op.cit. p.443.

TEXTUAL VARIANTS AND THEOLOGY: A STUDY OF THE GALATIANS TEXT OFPAPYRUS 46

Howard EshbaughHillcrest United Presbyterian Church

15 Church StreetBurgettstown, Pennsylvania 15021

Several recent studies have shown the theological signifi-cance of textual variants. By a comparison of the Galatian

text of P46 (the earliest extant witness of the Pauline

corpus) with other witnesses, several variants (3:19, 17;

4:6,7; 1:6; 2:20) have been found to be theologically signi-ficant.

at Bobst Library, New York University on May 3, 2015 jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jnt.sagepub.com/






61

The primary task of textual criticism has been the quest of

the original text. Hence variant readings have been explained as

the result of scribal error, a slip of the pen, or harmonization

with another text/1/. Consensus seems to be that textual criti-

cism is atheological, a safe discipline that is purely scientific.

My own introduction to the mass of variants in the Nestle text was

cushioned by the word of assurance from the intructor that none ofthese variants made any theological difference. While that scholar

today would deny the validity of this claim, there are many who

still affirm it: &dquo;There is no essential1 historical or theological1point that is determined one way or another by textual variants/2/.Such thinking is challenged by K.W. Clark,who pictures the earlyscribe as a theologian:

The earliest stage of transmission was marked by an

attitude of freedom in theological interpretation.Dogmatic purposes were in view and constituted the

basic attitude in the use of the gospel text/3/.Clark documents this problem of the relationship of textual criti-

cism and exegesis by showing specific instances within the Pauline

letters where variant readings make a theological difference:

Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 2:1; 6:20; 7:5; 10:19; 11:29; 13:3; 14:38; and

15:51/4/.

A monongraph by Eldon J. Epp further explores the relation-

ship of textual criticism and exegesis by examining a larger blockof scripture, the book of Acts, noting the differences between the

Western and Neutral texts. Epp finds that the Western text has an

anti-Judaic tendency that is shown by a threefold thrust: (1) In

the Western text the Jews and their leaders are more hostile to

Jesus, and they are assigned a greater responsibility for his

death; (2) the Western text minimizes the response of the Jews and

the importance of Judaism to the new faith; and (3) the Westerntext portrays the Jews, and especially their leaders, as more hos-

tile towards the apostles and as persecuting them more vigorously/5/.

Another contribution to the study of the theological impor-tance of textual variants is a doctoral dissertation by M.R. Pelt,written under the supervision of K.W. Clark. In this work, 175

New Testament passages have been selected &dquo;in which an important

difference of theological interpretation rests upon the choicebetween two or more variant readinqs/6/. The variants have been

discussed under the headings: God, Jesus Christ, and the Life of

the Christian Community.








62

A recent addition to the study of textual variants and theol-

ogy is a doctoral dissertation written by G.E. Rice under the

supervision of E.J. Epp. Rice has examined the text of Luke in

Codex Bezae, and identified as emphases of this manuscript: (1)Theexaltation of Jesus, and (2) an anti-Judaic bias/7/.

My own work, also under the supervision of E.J. Epp, was an

examination of the Western text (primarily Codex Vaticanus) andthe Western text (primarily Codex Claramontanus) of the Pauline

epistles/8/. The number of theologically significant variants was

quite small (24, comprisinq only about 50 words). Several reasons

may account for this relatively small number of theological var-

iants : (1) The genre of the epistles: narrative is easier to

alter/9/; (2) the relatively pure state of the Pauline text/10/;and (3) a conservative methodology/11/.

Several conclusions were drawn from this study: (1) The

Western theological variants are concerned with many of the signi-ficant theological problems that confronted the early church;(2) the Western theological variants as a whole do not show any

pattern supporting one particular type of theology; and (3) it is

impossible to discern whether a Western reading is the source or

the result of theological conflict.

This paper is a further effort to show the theological signi-ficance of textual criticism by the study of P46. This papyrusis the earliest extant witness of Paul, dating about 200 AD/12/.This initial study will examine variant readings in Galatians.

This verse introduces the story of law (3:19-25). Woven into

this story are the origin, function, and limitation of the law.

The entire passage is regarded by G.S. Duncan as a &dquo;depreciatoryaccount of the Law/14/. On the other hand, some, e.o. R.T. Stamm,








63

find this text to be obscure, and that this obscurity has producedthe textual chanqes/15/.

In the UBS reading of 3:19 the use of the verb form &dquo;it was

added&dquo; has been interpreted as showing that the law &dquo;is a mere ad-dition to the main stream of God’s purpose/16/. The lack of a verb

in P46 and the verb of the Western uncials, &dquo;was established,&dquo;makes interpretation of the law as an insignificant, parentheticalafterthought less likely, if not impossible. Deletion of the verb

&dquo;was added&dquo; also makes this passage more in harmony with 3:15 that

states &dquo;no one annuls even a man’s will, or adds to it/17/.

The UBS phrase xapjv iTpo,:7Ere~Tl has been interpreted

in two ways: (1) The law was added in order that man miqht knowwhat sin is, to define sin by recognizing its sinfulness/18/. (2)The law was added in order that man might sin, to make him more

sinful/19/. The reading of P46, &dquo;the law of deeds,&dquo; also may be in-

terpreted in two ways: (1) The law was established as a result of

evil deeds in order to check and restrain them/20/. (2) The law

was established in order that good deeds might be accomplished. The

law in this latter interpretation does not have any negative func-

tion in relation to sin, but has the positive function of hringing

about good. Ambrosiaster, whose text is the same as the Latin ofClaromontanus (d), states that this &dquo;law of deeds&dquo; was establishedto instruct the people how to fear God. Some of the specific deedsmentioned by Ambrosiaster are sacrifice, primogeniture, and the

tithe/21/. The items on this list of good deeds in Ambrosiaster

are some of the traditions of Israel, and Ambrosiaster’s commentarycould also serve as an exposition of the Greek text of D.

While it is possible to interpret the UBS text as a disparage-

ment of law, it is impossible to doso

with the text of P46 and itssupporting manuscripts. The law in P46 is either to contain and

check evil deeds or to produce good deeds. This latter interpre-tation is supported by the Greek text of Claromontanus. This posi-tive interpretation of the law is also found elsewhere in the Paul-ine corpus: &dquo;The law is good&dquo; (Rom. 7:12, 16b); and the law is one

of the privileged possessions given to Israel by God (Rom.9:5).

Gal. 3:17








64

In 3:15-18, Paul applies to the prior covenant in Abraham

(3:15) a human illustration about the irrevocable nature of a man’swill. Paul asserts that Christ is the seed of Abraham to whom the

promises are addressed (3:16). The law is shown temporally to be

after the promise to Abraham and, therefore, as a codicil, incap-able of negating the prior promise (3:17). Paul concludes thatthe inheritance is by promise and not by law (3:18).

The basic intent of either of the readings of 3:17 is to showthat the law was established after the covenant with Abraham. For

Paul, in contrast to the rabbis/22/, the law has no pre-existenceThe text of P46 and the text of UBS presents the fact without any

Christological reference, but the other text (a Western reading)

relates Christ to the prior covenant with Abraham/23/. This textindicates the pre-existence of Christ and shows him as acting in

history prior to the incarnation.

In Gal. 4:1-6 Paul explains the benefits of sonship. God has

bestowed a twofold gift upon his people: the sending of his son,

and the sending of the Spirit. The consensus text, by use of a

genitive phrase, clearly indicates that this &dquo;Spirit&dquo; is the

&dquo;Spirit&dquo; of his Son.&dquo;II

This passage from the UBS text along with

John 15:26 are the classical proof texts for the doctrine that the

Spirit proceedsfrom

the Fatherand the Son

(filioque)/24/.This

doctrine has been a continuing focal point for theological contro-

versy throughout the history of the church/25/.

In contrast the text of P46 states merely that God has sent

his Spirit. If P46 is a secondary text, its deletion may implythat this was done to show that the Spirit proceeds only from the

Father. However, if it is original, it may imply: (1) The Spiritdoes not come from the Son; or (2) the origin of the Spirit has not

yetbeen considered a

theological problem.








65

Here as in 3:17 P46 is in agreement with the UBS text. The

other readings are not well attested and are generally considered

to be secondary. However, theologically it must be noted that some

of them indicate that Christ has some role in the bestowal of the

inheritance. This is in contrast to the reading of P46 whichstates that it is through God alone that the inheritance is be-stowed.








66

In Galatians Paul often shows Christ to be the aqent ofChrist’s blessing: freedom in Christ (2:4), justified in Christ

(2:17); Christ redeemed us (3:13), Abraham’s blessing comes uponus in

Christ,and in Christ all are sons of God

(3:26). Hence,it seems strange that in 4:7 there is no reference to the agencyof Christ and that God alone bestows the inheritance. P46 here is

Christologically barren.

Paul begins the main portion of this letter by stating hisconcern that the Galatians have abandoned the gospel. Textual var-

iation occurs in the second phrahe. The UBS text modifies grace by&dquo;of Chri~t.&dquo; Similarly D 326 sy modify grace by &dquo;of Jesus Christ,&dquo;and cop Jerome use of &dquo;of Christ Jesus.&dquo; These readings havebeen interpreted in several ways: (1) Christ is the object of the

preposition &dquo;from.&dquo; The Galatians have turned from Christ, and itis Christ who has called them by grace ; (2) &dquo;In the qrace of

Christ&dquo; is instrumental; (3) The phrase is elliptical and stands

for the one who called you to be in the grace of Christ; (4) Paulstands in Christ’s grace when he (Paul) called the Galatians/26/.

Each of these interpretations has a specific Christologicalreference. In contrast to the UBS text and its cognates, some

minuscule manuscripts modify grace by &dquo;of God.&dquo; This readingspecifically precludes any Christological interpretation. God








67

alone here appears to be the actor and agent.

Since the text of P46 has no genitive modifier, it is pos-

sible on the basis of a pre-understanding of what grace is, to

interpret &dquo;grace&dquo; as &dquo;the grace of Christ&dquo;/27/. However, the si-

lence of P46 makes it more probably that the text of P46 has no

Christological reference. Thus 1:6 as well as 3:17; 4:6; and 4:7

are not Christologically oriented.

Gal. 2:20

In 2:15-20 Paul presents the heart of his argument to the

Galatians. He does not argue abstractly but relates his own per-sonal experience. V.20 summarizes this experience: &dquo;I have to be

crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who

lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith

in the Son of God (in God and Christ), who loved me and gave him-

self for me.&dquo;11

Both readings are unique. While Paul many times speaks about

&dquo;faith in Christ&dquo; and its cognates, he never elsewhere uses the

phrase &dquo;faith in the Son of God.&dquo;II The P46 reading &dquo;faith in God

and Christ&dquo; is the sole occurrence of a double object of faith.

While Metzger’s statement that &dquo;Paul1 nowhere else expresslyspeaks of God as the object of a Christian’s faith&dquo;/29/ is true,

there is the possibility that the reading of P46 is a subjectivegenitive and should be translated &dquo;I live by the faith (fulness)of God and Christ/30/.

These readinqs,like those considered above, show a Christo-

logical difference. The UBS text by its use of &dquo;Son of God&dquo; shows

a higher, more formalized Christology than the P46 text which makes

God as well as Christ the object (subject) of faith.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CHRISTOLOGICAL VARIANTS IN P46

This paper has attempted to show the theological significanceof readinas in P46 without noting whether they or the texts with








68

which they are compared are the original readings/31/. While this

quest is beyond the scope of this investigation, some perspectiveon the theological significance may be gained by viewing the Christ-oloqical variants in P46, as a whole, first as secondary and then

as original readings.

If P46 is a secondary text, these variants suggest that P46

has a subordinationist Christology. 4:6 speaks of the sending of

the Spirit. In P46 this Spirit is God’s Spirit not the Spirit of

the Son/32/. In 4:7, P46 makes no declaration of the agency of

Christ. The inheritance has come through the agency of God alone.

Similarly in 1:6, P46 does not speak of &dquo;the grace of Christ.&dquo; In

2:20, P46 has changed the genitive phrase &dquo;faith in the Son of God&dquo;

to read &dquo;faith in God and Christ.&dquo;

’I

The addition of the phrase &dquo;innGod&dquo; suggests that the scribe-theologian/33/ saw a need for a role

of God in this passage to support the work of Christ. 3:17 makes

no mention of the agency of Christ in establishment of the cove-

nant of Abraham. Together these readings suggest subordinationist

Christology.

On the other hand if P46 is the original text, the other text

has embellished these readings and established a broader, higher

Christology. In 4:6 the scribe-theologian has added the phrase&dquo;of his Son.&dquo;II

4:7 shows the agency of Christ. In 1:6 it is the

grace &dquo;of Christ.&dquo; 2:20 has the Son alone as the object of faith

that enables Paul to live. In 3:17 Christ is not only pre-exis-tent but works in history before the incarnation. Thus, if P46 is

original, this later text has added material in order to presenta higher Christology/34/.

Where does P46 fit into church history? Some scholars have

noteda

relationshipwith Marcion. The Nestle text

(25th ed.)con-

jectures that Marcion utilized the reading of P46 that omits the

phrase &dquo;of his Son&dquo; in 4:6. Harnack, as cited by Blackman,&dquo;prob-ably&dquo;lists 1:6 as found in P46 as a Marcionite tendentious emen-

dation/35/. However, no explanation is given for this omission.

On the other hand, Schlier and others have noted that 3:19 of P46

is probably a reaction to the theology of Marcion/36/.

CONCLUSION

Thispaper

is the

beginningof a

complete studyof the

signi-ficance of textual variants in P46. Galatians was chosen at random

as a starting point, and some theologically significant readingshave been found. Whether other letters will be as fruitful remains

to be discovered.








69

In such a study the problem of a precise methodology must be

resolved. What should be the basis of comparison? 4Jhat is the

relationship of P46 and text-types? How are text types defined/37/?

I believe that study of variant readings in P46 and other manu-

scripts is useful to both the exegete and the church historian. The

exegete will gain some insight on the text as the variant shows howsome scribe-theologian wrote how he thought the text was to be un-

derstood/38/. These variants whould also help the church historian

as they show areas of theological controversy.

NOTES

/1/ Note the frequency of "accidentally" in B.M. Metzger, A Tex-tual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York, 1971,passim.

/2/ H.C. Kee, F.W. Young, and K. Froelich, Understanding the New

Testament (Englewood Cliffs, 1963), "Introduction (n.p.). Others

similarly state: "There is not one (variant) affecting the sub-

stance of Christian dogma." L. Vaganay, An Introduction to the

Textual Criticism of the New Testament, cited by K.W. Clark,"Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism

of the Greek New

Testament,"Journal of Biblical Literature, 85

(1966), 3: and "There is no essential historical or theologicalpoint that is determined one way or another by textual variants.",J.H. Greenlee, Introduction to Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids,1964), p. 68.

/3/ "Theological Relevance,"7.

/4/ "Textual Criticism and Doctrine," Studia Paulina (Haarlem,1953), pp. 69-80.

/5/ The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (Cambridge, 1966), p. 165.

/6/ "Textual Variation in Relation to Theological Interpretation in

the New Testament" (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1966)

/7/ "The Alteration of Luke’s Tradition by the Textual Variants

in Codex Bezae" (Ph.D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve Univer-

sity, 1974), p. 262.

/8/ "Theological Variants in the Western Text of the Pauline Corpus"(Ph.D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1975).

/9/ W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam, Romans (6th ed.; Edinburgh, 1964),p. lxxi. Only 27 of Pelt’s 175 variants are from Paul.








70

/10/ G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (London, 1953), p. 263.

/11/ In order to qualify as a Western reading the variant had to

appear in one of the bilingual codices (Dd, Ff, Gg) and have

attestation

bya Western Father. This excluded about 75

readings./12/ B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York, 1964),p. 252.

/13/ The Greek New Testament of the United Bible Societies, ed. K.

Aland, M. Black, B.M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren (Stuttgart, 1969)will be used for comparison with P46. When P46 agrees with the

consensus text of the UBS, other manuscripts will be used for com-

parison. Such a methodology will be employed in this preliminary

paper.If a

complete studyof the

theologicaltextual variants

is carried out, a more reasoned methodology, probably utilizingtext types, will be used.

/14/ The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (London, 1934), p. 115.

/15/ "Exegesis of Galatians," The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. G.A.

Buttrick, etal. (New York, 1953), Vol. X, p. 513.

/16/ G.S. Duncan, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, p.115.

/17/ E.D. Burton, The

Epistleto the

Galatians (Edinburgh,1921),

p. 168.

/18/ J.B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians

(London, 1896), p. 144.

/19/ R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel

(New York, 1951), Vol. I, p. 265.

/20/ This is similar to Lightfoot’s first interpretation "to check

transgressions" (p. 144). Lightfoot gives no Pauline support but

lists Clem. Hom. XI. 16.

/21/ Ambrosiastri qui Dicitur Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas,ed. H.J. Vogels (Vindobonae, 1966 , Vol. I, p. 38.

/22/ Sifre Deut. #37:76a; Gen. R. 8,2; ABN 31.

/23/ There are two grammatical possibilities for the phraseϵι&sfgr; χριστ&ogr;ν: (1) The phrase could be taken temporally,

that is, the law is only to exist until the coming of Christ.While this interpretation is a grammatical possibility, its weak-ness is that it places the covenant on the same temporal level as

the law. This interpretation diminishes the thrust of Paul’s

argument. (2) ϵις χριστ&ogr;ν could mean that Christ is the agentof the covenant. This is based upon the fact that in Koine Greek








71

the preposition ϵι&sfgr; can have the same meaning as the preposi-tion ϵν. Hence, it is possible that the phrase ϵι&sfgr; χριστ&ogr;νshows Christ as a personal agent. This interpretation is shared

by the Latin witnesses of the western text, for the Latin prepo-sition in also can show agency. This alternative is taken as more

probable because of the united testimony of the Greek and Latin

witnesses.

/24/ "Confession of Faith," The Constitution of the PresbyterianChurch in the United States of America, 1919 (Philadelphia), p.20,n.q.

/25/ W. Walker, A History of the Christian Church(New York, 1950):

The Third Council of Toledo added the phrase to the Nicene Creed in589 (p.180).

/26/ Bligh, Galatians in Greek (Detroit, 1966), p. 80

/27/ H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 12ed. (Göttingen, 1962,p. 37, n.2.

/28/ The RSV as well as many commentators make this phrase an ob-

jective genitive. Some as H. Ljungman, Pistis: A Study of Its

Presuppositions and Its Meaning in Pauline Use (Lund, 1964), p. 38;and M. Barth, "Galatians" (unpublished, Pittsburgh), p. 421 take

this to be a subjective genitive and translate the phrase as "bythe faithfulness of the Son of God." The possibility that the text

of P46 is a subjective genitive will be discussed below.

/29/ A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York,1971), p. 593

/30/ See Rom. 3:3 for this usage (the faithfulness of God).

/31/ In 3:17 the UBS text is the same as P46 and other mss. areused for comparison.

/32/ P46 may have done this to keep from confusing the persons ofthe Trinity. E.g., The Shepherd of Hermas, Sim. 5,5,2 and 9,9,1equates the Spirit and the Son.

/33/ The dual function was suggested by K.W. Clark.

/34/ Further research must be carried out in order to see if this

pattern exists elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. If it does not

exist in the corpus as a whole, it may be indicative that eachletter has had its own textual history.

Eshbaugh -Textual Variants Galatians Theology P46

Documents

Transcript of Eshbaugh -Textual Variants Galatians Theology P46