Abstract
The phenomenon of scribal harmonization is frequently mentioned in scholarship dealing with the text of the synoptic gospels and it in invoked as an explanation of variants that assimilate one text to the reading of another. While individual variants have been studied and larger theories extrapolated from this limited data, what has been lacking is a thoroughgoing mapping of the evidence and discussion of harmonization based upon this larger set of evidence. Cambry Pardee’s study fills this lacuna in scholarship by examining the earliest Greek manuscripts for evidence that scribes altered the text in order to eliminate discrepancies between the synoptic gospels.
The parameters of the study are set out in the following terms. ‘The book provides a catalogue and analysis of harmonizing variants in every Greek manuscript of the Synoptic Gospels from the second to fourth centuries, including the great fourth century uncials Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus’ (p. 38). The choice of time period is justified on the basis of the frequently repeated claim that, as Pardee puts it, ‘[t]he second to the fourth century was the period of greatest change in the text’ (p. 39). In contrast it is stated that ‘[t]he onset of the period of control towards the middle of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth century serves as our approximate terminus’ (p. 39). This division between a period of wild fluctuation and one of relative stability may well be incorrect, or at least a false dichotomy. As one example, it might have been useful to have compared Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D 05), both for insights into textual stability and for patterns of harmonization. However, this point aside, the period selected provides a wealth of interesting and relevant data.
After the introductory chapter, the book presents five chapters that analyse the manuscript evidence arranged in chronological order. Thus chapter two examines fragmentary manuscripts of the second and third centuries, chapter three extensive manuscripts of the second and third centuries (namely P45 and P75), chapter four fragmentary manuscripts of the fourth century, chapter five is devoted to Codex Vaticanus, and chapter six to Codex Sinaiticus. The analysis involves analysing each manuscript for three types of variants: (1) singular readings; (2) comparative readings; and (3) accepted readings that may in fact be secondary harmonizing readings. The outcome of the analysis is to present ‘the harmonizing habit of each individual scribe and manuscript’ (p. 43).
The first example in chapter two, the case of P104 demonstrates the difficulty in working with fragmentary manuscripts. The text contains Matt 21:34–37 on the recto, but the verso is significantly abraded, leading to the NA28 to simply describe the contents of the verso as Matt 21:43–45(?). On the basis of the few remaining letters Cambry accepts the suggestion that Matt 21.44 was omitted in this manuscript. Here he suggests that harmonization did not play a role in the omission of Matt 21.44 in P104, but that this verse and the parallel in Lk 20.18 occur due to independent knowledge of ‘a tradition with both stone-sayings into which Matthew interjects his own v. 43’ (p. 56). By contrast the analysis of P45 provides a far greater amount of text for comparison (see pp. 143–191). The result Cambry presents opposes some earlier claims that P45 contained few harmonizations. Thus he states his result that ‘[o]f the ninety-four variants analysed, thirty-one are likely and fifteen very likely to have been created under the influence of Synoptic parallels’ (p. 189). While each case needs to be considered on its own merits, this is potentially a significant result.
In terms of overall results, Cambry finds that Matthew is frequently to source for harmonizing readings. In other words the texts of Mark and Luke are aligned with Matthew more often than Matthew is aligned with the other two synoptic gospels. Thus it is concluded that ‘Matthew is the sole source for 41 percent of the harmonizing variants and could be the source of up to 62 percent’ (p. 423). By contrast, Luke appears to be the clear source of harmonization in 15.7 percent of cases, and Mark in 12.1 percent of cases. These results are fascinating. Cambry has performed a great service to those interested in the texts of the synoptic gospels and the scribal habits of those copying these texts. The results depend to the analysis of individual variants and there interpretation. Here there is room to offer alternative explanations from those provided. Therefore, while this study might not be the final word on the topic of synoptic gospel harmonization, it certainly has moved the discussion forward in meaningful and fresh ways.