Textual criticism and the Diatesseron: "Levi son of Alphaeus" vs "James son of Alphaeus"

[gryan]

Re: "Levi son of Alphaeus" vs "James son of Alphaeus"

Diatesseron (Roberts-Donaldson English Translation)

SECTION VII. vs. 9
"And his [Jesus'] fame became known that he was teaching in every place and being glorified by every man. And when he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting among the tax-gatherers; and he said unto him, Follow me: and he rose and followed him."
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html

According to the NA27 apparatus for Mk 2:14, the text of the Diatesseron(a) was not "Levi", but rather "James son of Alphaeus".

Did Roberts-Donaldson not follow the critical text of the Diatesseron? What is going on here?

[DCHindley]

Re: "Levi son of Alphaeus" vs "James son of Alphaeus"

Diatesseron (Roberts-Donaldson English Translation)

SECTION VII. vs. 9
"And his [Jesus'] fame became known that he was teaching in every place and being glorified by every man. And when he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting among the tax-gatherers; and he said unto him, Follow me: and he rose and followed him."
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html

According to the NA27 apparatus for Mk 2:14, the text of the Diatesseron(a) was not "Levi", but rather "James son of Alphaeus".

Did Roberts-Donaldson not follow the critical text of the Diatesseron? What is going on here?

The translator, the Rev. Hope W Hogg, translated the "Arabic Diatessaron" as he was an expert in Arabic. He readily admits the Arabic Diatessaron may or may not be a good representation of the Syriac Diatessaron.

When the texts of volume 10 (not 9, as we find in the online versions) of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series were being commissioned to scholars by general editor Allen Menzies (not Alexander & Roberts) in the late 19th century (the final volume was published in 1898), there was no "critical text" of the Diatessaron. There was another competing edition that came out around the same year.*

Hogg tries to cross check the Syriac commentaries for clues to the original Syriac wording, but as many have learned, even the Syriac commentaries have thoroughly revised the text of the Diatessaron to conform to the Peshitta version of the canonical gospels.

Hogg's critical notes are pretty extensive, though, and worth a close reading. Hogg was a bit of a maverick in his day. The son of John Hogg, an exceptionally well known Scottish Presbyterian missionary to Egypt in the mid 19th century, he resigned his missionary appointment because he came to disagree with their theological position on the inspiration of scripture.**

I think I may have documented his story either on this list or on IIDB/FRDB in discussions about Kenneth Bailey's use of John Hogg's life story in his theory of informal controlled oral tradition. John Hogg was an early advocate for the newly rediscovered Didache, which he thought would be a good recruitment tool for bringing Coptic Christian clergy to his evangelical POV.

DCH

*Here is how J Estlin Carpenter (one of the early JEPD theorists) summarized Diatessaron studies in his day (The Composition of the Hexateuch: An Introduction, 1902):

"... this process [the welding of two or more sources into a single whole] also may be traced in a remarkable
instance in the early Christian Church(a). The Diatessaron of Tatian, the pupil of Justin the Martyr in Rome in the middle
of the second century, was long conjectured to be a harmony of the Gospels. It was known that after Justin's death Tatian left Rome and returned to the East. The Diatessaron which bore his name speedily became popular in the Syrian Churches, and was even regarded in the fourth century as the standard form in which the Church at Edessa had preserved the Gospel(b). In the fifth century it was publicly used in more than two hundred churches, and was known by the name of the 'Composite' Gospel, in contrast with the ' Separate ' or ' Distinct. ' For purposes of church service it was ultimately replaced by the canonical Gospels, but it was still copied for centuries ; commentaries were written upon it; and an Arabic reproduction appeared soon after 1000 ad, which continued in circulation for another 300 years.

The publication in 1876 of a Latin translation of a commentary by Ephraem the Syrian preserved in Armenian awoke the interest of Western scholars :

twelve years later Father Ciasca issued the text of an Arabic version (Rome, 1888) founded on two MSS, one of which had been brought to the Vatican about 1719, while the other only reached Rome from Egypt in 1886.

The materials of the Harmony obviously fall asunder into two groups, the First Three Gospels, and the Fourth. Of the latter nearly the whole has been preserved(c); of the rest, about one-third has been sacrificed. The omissions are due partly to the existence of a large amount of common matter, though in any incident related by all the Evangelists the significant details are carefully collected from each, partly to doctrinal or other reasons (as in the case of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke) which cannot be precisely determined. While the causes are for the present purpose immaterial, the fact is significant. The purpose of combining the whole was not inconsistent with the rejection of some of the parts.

a) Prof G F Moore first called attention to this parallel in his article entitled 'Tatian's Diatessaron and the analysis of the Pentateuch,' Journal of Biblical Literature (1890) 201-215.
b) Doctrine of Addai, transl Phillips, p34 ; Dict. of Christ Biography 796.
c) Prof Moore reckons 847 verses out of 880, or over 96 per cent ; to Matthew he assigns 821 out of 1071, or 76-5 per cent ; to Mark 340 out of 678, or a fraction over 50 per cent ; to Luke 761 out of 1151, or 66.2 per cent. Journ of Bibl Lit (1890) 203.

**

Minutes of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church of North America, Volumes 35-38 By United Presbyterian Church of North America. General Assembly.

Minutes for 1893 have Rev Hope W Hogg as Secretary of the Mission Training College, Asyoot, Egypt, and resident in same town.

Minutes of 1894 have Rev. Hope W Hogg resigning his position as a missionary, Sept 1894, due to changes in view regarding inspiration of scripture, etc. Teaching position extended to Jan 15, 1895 at mission board's request. Separation was amicable. Board respectfully noted that Hope W Hogg was son of a well respected missionary (John Hogg).

http://books.google.com/books?id=AcMQAA ... 22&f=false

[gryan]

Re: "Dr. Hope W Hogg, translated the "Arabic Diatessaron" as he was an expert in Arabic."
I found another edition with Hogg as translator:
https://df34e017f9c26b9c7b00-b8e800764a ... -vol-9.pdf

Here are the reputedly "Arabic" Diatessaron's parallels to the synoptic accounts of the calling of the tax collector in order:

Parallel to Matt: The call of "Matthew"
Section 6, vs 46:
510And when Jesus went out of the synagogue, 511he saw a man sitting among the
publicans,512 named Matthew: and he said unto him, Come after me. And he rose, and
followed him.

510 Luke iv. 38, "And he arose and left the synagogue"
511 Matt. ix. 9b.
512 So in the Arabic. It is, however, simply a misinterpretation of the expression in the Syriac versions for
at the place of toll (cf. Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary).


Parallel to the standard critical text of Mk: The call of "Levi son of Alphaeus"
Section VII, vs 9
534And when he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphæus sitting among
the tax-gatherers;535 and he said unto him, Follow [10] me: and he rose and followed him.

534 Mark ii. 14.
535 See above, note to § 6, 46, which applies, although the Arabic words are different


Parallel to Lk: The call of "Levi" and the great feast at the house of "Levi"
Section VII vs 26
560And after that, Jesus went out, and saw a publican, named Levi,
sitting [26] among the publicans:561
and he said unto him, Follow me. 562And he left [27]
everything, and rose, and followed him.

563And Levi made him a great feast in his house.
And there was a great multitude of the publicans and others sitting with him. [28] 564And
the scribes and Pharisees murmured, and said unto his disciples, Why do ye eat [29] and
drink with the publicans and sinners? 565Jesus answered and said unto them, The physician
seeketh not those who are well, but those that are afflicted with grievous [30, 31] sickness.566
567I came not to call the righteous, but the sinners, to repentance.

560 Luke v. 27.
561 See above, note to § 6, 46.
562 Luke v. 28.
563 Luke v. 29.
564 Luke v. 30.
565 Luke v. 31.
566 A Syriacism.
567 Luke v. 32.

-------------------------------

NA27 Diatessaron(a)

On further inspection, I learned that in NA27, Diatessaron(a) refers to the Arabic text.
So, according to NA27, the Arabic text of the Diatessaron features, not "Levi son of Alphaeus", but rather, "James son of Alphaeus" as the tax collector who was called.

This scholarly "Note" by F. C. BURKITT explains the origin of Hogg's misrepresentation of the Arabic Text:
Francis Crawford Burkitt FBA (3 September 1864 – 11 May 1935)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crawford_Burkitt

"The special object of this Note is to point out that both MSS of the
Arabic Diatessaron actually read 'James' (y.J~), as is duly recorded
in Ciasca's Arabic apparatus, though he regarded it as a scribe's blunder
and put Levi in his text and in his Latin translation. From Ciasca it
passed to the English editions of Hamlyn Hill and H. W. Hogg..."
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/028_273.pdf

[rgprice]

Doesn't this seem to settle the question in your earlier thread? viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9953

This seems to be a sort of modern example of the continuing problem.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

This scholarly "Note" by F. C. BURKITT explains the origin of Hogg's misrepresentation of the Arabic Text:
Francis Crawford Burkitt FBA (3 September 1864 – 11 May 1935)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crawford_Burkitt

"The special object of this Note is to point out that both MSS of the
Arabic Diatessaron actually read 'James' (y.J~), as is duly recorded
in Ciasca's Arabic apparatus, though he regarded it as a scribe's blunder
and put Levi in his text and in his Latin translation. From Ciasca it
passed to the English editions of Hamlyn Hill and H. W. Hogg..."
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/028_273.pdf

laparola gives the following text variants for Mark 2:14

Levin (Λευὶν): (see Luke 5:27) p88 (‭א2 B L W l70 Λευείν) C E F G H L W Σ f1 157 180 205 579 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1365 1424 2174 2427 Byz Lect (l60 Λευήν) itf vgww vgst slav Augustine ς WH

Levi (Λευί): (‭א* Λευεί) A K Γ Δ Π (28 Λευή) 33 597 1079 1344 1505 1546 1646 2148 Byz2005 l184 l225 l302 l313 l672 l866 l956 l1016 l1074 l1642 itaur itl itq vgcl syrp syrh syrpal (copsa(mss) Λευεί) copbo (goth Λευυί) arm eth geo Origen

Jakobon (Ἰάκωβον): (see Mark 3:18) D Θ f13 59 565 676 1506 2508 ita itb itc itd ite itff2 itr1 vgms Diatessaron Ephraem Photius

It can be seen that the text variant "Jakob" is one of the branches of the Western text type.

It seems remarkable that the name "Levi" is not only changed to "Jakob" in some mss of the Western text type, but "Levi" nevertheless counts among the twelve as a Latinized Lebbaeus instead of Thaddaeus.

Kok wrote:

The Western reading attested in Codex Bezae that switched Thaddaeus with Lebbaeus, the Latinized form of Levi, in the list of the twelve apostles in Mark 3:18, influenced the textual transmission of Matthew 10:3.[8] Alternatively, the textual variant that has “James” instead of “Levi” as the son of Alphaeus in Mark 2:14 in a handful of manuscripts was plausibly motivated by a “desire for uniformity” by having a single “son of Alphaeus” (cf. Mark 3:18).[9] In both instances, certain copyists of Mark’s Gospel were unaware of the conflation of Levi with Matthew in Matthew 9:9 and 10:3, yet still turned the character in Mark 2:14 into an apostle. Perhaps they did so because Levi’s call narrative closely resembled the summons of the first four apostles to discipleship in Mark 1:16–20 and Alpheus was already remembered as the father of one of the apostles in Mark 3:18.[10] Even so, most readers of the New Testament throughout history have taken the identification of Levi with Matthew for granted.

laparola for Mark 3:18

καὶ Θαδδαῖον] (see Matthew 10:3) ‭א A B C E F G H (K Δαδδαῖον) L Δc (Δ* Ταδδαῖον) (Θ omit καὶ) Π Σ 0134 f1 f13 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 2427 Byz Lect (l150 l211 Θαδαῖον) itaur itc itf itl vg syrs syrp syrh copsa copbo goth arm eth geo slav Diatessaronp Origengr Origenlat ς WH
καὶ Λεββαῖον] D ita itb itd itff2 iti itq itr1
καὶ Λευής] mssaccording to Origen
omit] W (ite and add Iudas after Βαρθολομα)

[gryan]

RE: Evidence that "Matthew" in GMatt and "Levi" in GLk were NOT considered by the authors of GMatt and GLk to be the same person.

As presented in the blogpost by Michael J. Kok March 2020:
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... st-matthew
(Michael J. Kok has written a relevant book that is listed as forthcoming on Amazon:
Tax Collector to Gospel Writer: Patristic Traditions about the Evangelist Matthew)

Richard Bauckham's argument that Levi and Matthew were separate individuals:

"If Matthew and Levi were the same person, we should be confronted with the virtually unparalleled phenomenon of a Palestinian Jew bearing two common Semitic personal names (Matthew: ninth most popular, 62 occurrences; Levi: seventeenth most popular, 25 occurrences). This is a quite different case from that of an individual having both a Semitic and a Greek or Latin name, as well as from that of an individual having a Semitic name and also a nickname or family name."

Ancient evidence that Levi and Matthew were regarded as separate individuals.

1) Heracleon differentiated Levi from Matthew (cf. Clement, str. 4.9).
2) Origen stressing that Matthew was the sole toll collector within the apostolic circle and that Levi was not numbered among the twelve apostles
3)Codex Bezae...switched Thaddaeus with Lebbaeus so that Levi would have a place of his own among the 12.
4)...the textual variant that has “James” instead of “Levi” as the son of Alphaeus in Mark 2:14

Benjamin Bacon's interesting but imho flawed argument that the identification of "Matthew" as "the toll collector" was a case of mistaken identity due to scribal error:
In 1897, Benjamin Wisner Bacon became a professor of New Testament criticism and exegesis at
Yale Divinity School.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wisner_Bacon
(Studies in Matthew [New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1930], 39–40)
https://archive.org/details/MN41459ucmf ... ew=theater

"Bacon conjectures that the textual variant [James son of Alphaeus] in Mark 2:14 predated the composition of Matthew’s Gospel, leading a pre-Matthean scribe who was transmitting a list of the Twelve that was originally independent of Mark 3:16–19 to preface the name James the son of Alphaeus with the title “the toll collector.” The author of Matthew’s Gospel, however, copied this list in Matthew 10:2–4 and wrongly took this scribal insertion in reference to Matthew since James was immediately preceded by Matthew in the list of names. Consequently, the evangelist wrote “Matthew” into the Markan story of the toll collector in Matthew 9:9."

[gryan]

Re: According to the NA27 apparatus for Mk 2:14, the name in the text of the Arabic Diatesseron was not "Levi", but rather "James son of Alphaeus".

Knowing that:
"both MSS of the Arabic Diatessaron actually read 'James' (y.J~), as is duly recorded
in Ciasca's Arabic apparatus"

It is interesting to learn the basis for F. C. BURKITT's claim:
"It is therefore certain that the Syriac Diatessaron
attests' James' for 'Levi' in Mk. ii 14"

Burkitt writes:
"It may be added by way of confirmation on Syriac [proto-Arabic] ground that
Barsalibi in his Commentary on the Gospels,
[Dionysius bar Salibi, d. 1171, was a Syriac Orthodox writer}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_bar_Salibi
commenting on
the List of the Twelve in Matt. 10:1-4,
says that two Apostles were Publicans, viz. Matthew and James son of Alphaeus."

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/028_273.pdf

[gryan]

Re: Lebbaeus

According to "McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia":

Lebbae'us (Λεββαῖος), a surname of Judas or Jude (Mt 10:3), one of the twelve apostles;
a member, together with his namesake "Iscariot," James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, of the last of the three sections of the apostolic body.

The name Judas only, without any distinguishing mark, occurs in the lists given in Lu 6:16; Ac 1:13; and in Joh 14:22 (where we find "Judas not Iscariot" among the apostles), but the apostle has been generally identified with "Lebbeus whose surname was Thaddaeus" (Λεββαῖος ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς θαδδαῖος) (Mt 10:3; Mr 3:18),
though Schleiermacher (Critical Essay on St. Luke, p. 93) treats with scorn any such attempt to reconcile the lists.

In both the last quoted places there is considerable variety of reading, some MSS. having both in Matthew and Mark Λεββαῖος, θαδδαῖος alone, others introducing the name Ι᾿ούδας, or Judas Zelotes, in Matthew, where the Vulgate reads Thaddaeus alone, which is adopted by Lachmann in his Berlin edition of 1832.

This confusion is still further increased by:

1) the tradition preserved by Eusebius (H. E. 1:13) that the true name of Thomas (the twin) was Judas (Ι᾿ούδας ὁ καὶ θωμᾶς), and that Thaddaeus was one of the "seventy," identified by Jerome in Matthew 10 with" Judas Jacobi,"

2) as well as by the theories of modern scholars, who regard the "Levi" (Λευὶς ὁ τοῦ Α᾿λφαίου) of Mr 2:14: Luke v. 27, who is called "Lebes" (Λεβὴς) by Origen (Cont. Cels. 1. 1, § 62), as the same with Lebb'aus.

The safest way out of these acknowledged difficulties is to hold fast to the ordinarily received opinion that Jude, Lebbaeus, and Thaddaus were three names for the same apostle, who is therefore said by Jerome (in Matthew 10) to have been "trionimus," rather than introduce confusion into the apostolic catalogues, and render them erroneous either in excess or defect.

The interpretation of the names Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus is a question beset with almost equal difficulty.

The former is interpreted by Jerome "hearty," corculum, as from לֵב, cor, and Thaddaeus has been erroneously supposed to have a cognate signification, honop ectorosus, as from the Syriac תִּד, pectus (Lightfoot, Horae Heb. p. 235; Bengel, Matthew 10:3), the true signification of תִּד being mamma (Angl. teat) (Buxtorf, Lex. Talnm. p. 2565). Winer (Realwörterb. s.v.) would combine the two, and interpret them as meaning ierzensakind. Another interpretation of Lebbaeus is the young lion (leunculus), as from לָבַיא, leo (Schleusner, s.v.), while Lightfoot and Baumg. — Crusius would derive it from Lebba, a maritime town of Galilee mentioned by Pliny (Hist. Nat. v. 19), where, however, the ordinary reading is Jebba. Thaddaeus appears in Syriac under the form Adai; hence Michaelis admits the idea that Adai, Thaddaeus, and Judas may be different representations of the same word (4:370), and Wordsworth (Gr. Test. in Mt 10:3) identifies Thaddaeus with Judas, as both from הוֹדָה "to praise." Chrysostom (De Prod. Jud. 1. 1, 100, 2) says that there was a ''Judas Zelotes" anmong the disciples of our Lord, whom he identifies with the apostle.

https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/L/lebbaeus.html

--------------

"The Western reading attested in Codex Bezae that switched Thaddaeus with Lebbaeus, the Latinized form of Levi, in the list of the twelve apostles in Mark 3:18, influenced the textual transmission of Matthew 10:3."
[See Barnabas Lindars, “Matthew, Levi, Lebbaeus and the Value of the Western Text” NTS 4 (1957-58): 220-22; Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd ed., (London: New York, 1975)]
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... st-matthew

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

"It seems remarkable that the name 'Levi' is not only changed to 'Jakob' in some mss of the Western text type, but "Levi" nevertheless counts among the twelve as a Latinized Lebbaeus instead of Thaddaeus."

--------------

I suppose that if and when:

1) "the name 'Levi' is changed to 'Jakob'"
and also
2)"Levi"--interpreted as "a Latinized Lebbaeus instead of Thaddaeus"--is counted among the twelve

This suggests that "Jakob" and "Levi" were considered to be two distinct members of the 12.

[gryan]

F. C. BURKITT. concludes with a majority opinion contrary to my own:

"...the Western reading 'James ' in Mk. ii 14 is obviously a blunder or blundering correction,
suggested by the fact that James son of Alphaeus was the known name of an Apostle,
whereas Levi son of Alphaeus is otherwise unknown: ' Levi ' therefore is genuine in Mk. ii 4 :
the strongest external testimony is the fact that it is the name in Luke v,
in a section of that Gospel directly based on Mark,
while among our MSS its best supporters are ~ B W and r &c."

But he makes this interesting observation:

"How large and how various is the 'Western' phalanx!
Now that the correct text of the Syriac Diatessaron is assured
we have the solid support of all Latin texts before the Vulgate,
all extant Syriac texts before the Peshitta.
In Greek we have D, the two Pontic texts®and 565, the 'Ferrar Group',
and (if we may press the evidence of Origen) the text current at Caesarea.
Granted that ' Levi ' is right and 'James ' is wrong,
the problem that demands a solution is how ' Levi'
managed to survive into the 4th century."

-------------

Alternatively, if "James" is right and "Levi" is wrong, as I have argued in what will imho most likely remain a minority opinion:
viewtopic.php?p=143436#p143436

Then the Arabic Diatessaron is one part of a widespread Western "living tradition" preserving a straightforward original Markan flow of narrative logic from the call of "James son of Alphaeus" to the appearance of his name among the 12; and from his place in the audience of Jesus teaching on true greatness, to the appearance of his mother, "Mary the mother of the James" among the first to perceive the mysterious words spoken at the "empty tomb". And so the pillar James --understood as the son of Alphaeus, not the flesh and blood brother of the Lord (Gal 2, 1 Cor. 15:7 and Acts 15), will have a back-story befitting his role as a great visionary and servant leader.

[gryan]

F. C. BURKITT. concludes with a majority opinion contrary to my own:

"...the Western reading 'James ' in Mk. ii 14 is obviously a blunder or blundering correction,
suggested by the fact that James son of Alphaeus was the known name of an Apostle,
whereas Levi son of Alphaeus is otherwise unknown:
' Levi ' therefore is genuine in Mk. ii 4 :
the strongest external testimony is the fact that it is the name in Luke v,
in a section of that Gospel directly based on Mark,
while among our MSS its best supporters are ~ B W and r &c."

Even though it goes against my previously expressed opinion, I feel the weight of the "external evidence":
Given that Luke's story was based on Mark's, then Luke's literary echo is evidence that "Levi" is genuine in Mark.