Charles Landon. A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude. Journal for
the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, no. 135. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. ISBN: 1-85075-636-8. Pp. 172. £27.50; US
$45.00.
1. Two textual studies of the book of Jude (both incomplete investigations)
have been published before (Albin 1962, Kubo 1965), but neither has
approached the book from the standpoint of rigorous, or thoroughgoing,
eclecticism. Following in the tradition of G. D. Kilpatrick and J. K.
Elliott, Landon offers a textual study of Jude that treats ninety-five
points of variation from a thoroughgoing eclectic perspective. This work is
identical in content to his doctoral dissertation done at the University of
Stellenbosch.
2. Landon proposes to do an "eclectic" text-critical analysis of Jude, that
is, an evaluation of individual readings exclusively on the basis of
internal criteria. A secondary goal of the study is to evaluate the text
presented in the fourth edition of the UBS Greek New Testament (GNT4) to see
to what extent it is "eclectic" (i.e., rigorously eclectic). Landon's use of
the term "eclectic" throughout the book is problematic, not because of how
he defines the term (he is entitled to use his own definition), but because
he sometimes criticizes the work of reasoned eclectics for not being
eclectic enough, that is, not rigorously eclectic (cf. his critiques of Epp
[16] and the GNT4 [144]).
3. The first part of Landon's study is a description of and apology for
thoroughgoing eclecticism. He devotes little time to the theoretical bases
of the approach (apart from a brief historical survey), focusing instead on
the practice of this version of eclecticism. He correctly warns the reader
of the dangers of a "cookbook approach" to making textual decisions: "rules"
like preferring the shortest reading or the most difficult reading cannot be
applied without further analysis of the context and of the variants (for a
more thorough discussion of this point, see Tov 1982). Furthermore, the
rigorous eclectic puts special emphasis on the writer's style and theology
when making textual decisions. When discussing the use of style in making
text-critical decisions, Landon offers some unjustified criticisms of the
reasoned eclectic approach. For example, he says, "both WH [Westcott and
Hort] and the GNT4 editors often fail to allow the style of a given New
Testament author to shape their judgments" (30). In reality, reasoned
eclectics just do not give as much weight to this evidence as thoroughgoing
eclectics do. Again, "it cannot be taken for granted that the GNT4 editors
have properly considered the writer's style at points of variation
elsewhere" (31, emphasis his). Actually, what cannot be taken for granted is
that the GNT4 editors have put as much emphasis on the author's style as a
thoroughgoing eclectic would. With no further justification of style as the
foremost text-critical canon than references to the works of Kilpatrick and
Elliott, Landon should refrain from attacking the position of the other
eclectic camp. The problem is not that reasoned eclecticism is invulnerable
to attack; it is that Landon has offered neither the theoretical basis nor
the hard evidence to undermine the position he opposes.
4. On a more positive note, Landon offers a set of distinctive
characteristics of Jude's style: the frequent use of hapax legomena, triadic
illustration, repeated catchwords, synonymous parallelism, paronomasia,
contrast or antithesis, New Testament set expressions (i.e., phrases common
throughout the New Testament), and consistent word order. His claim that
Jude has an observably consistent style is questionable in light of the
brevity of the book, but since he has set the author's style as his
preeminent criterion for making textual judgments, he has fulfilled his
obligation of trying to identify Jude's characteristic stylistic traits.
5. When evaluating transcriptional probabilities, Landon says that the
Atticizing tendency of tradents (especially Alexandrian scribes) and the
propensity to eliminate Semitisms should be given due consideration. He also
takes Bart Ehrman's studies on "orthodox corruptions" (Ehrman 1993)
seriously when making textual decisions. Aside from this attention to the
spate of recent investigations focusing on possible theological motivations
behind certain variants (in addition to Ehrman 1993, see Landon's list of
studies on p. 43, n. 122), he adds nothing to the Kilpatrick-Elliott model
for textual decision-making; rather, he sets out to apply this model to the
book of Jude and compare his results with the text of GNT4. Critiques of
rigorous eclecticism are well-known (e.g., Fee 1993, Epp 1993), as are its
defenses (e.g., Elliott 1978, Kilpatrick 1990), so no further critique of
this part of Landon's presentation is necessary. Instead, further comments
will focus on his application of the principles of rigorous eclecticism to
the text of Jude.
6. In keeping with his belief in the importance of analyzing the author's
style when evaluating variants, Landon frequently invokes one or another of
the traits he has identified in the book when making a textual decision. He
rejects the "stylistically awkward double umas" in v. 5 (in
brackets in the GNT4 text) as being uncharacteristic of the author's usually
polished style (70). In v. 6, he prefers the reading de to the
GNT4's te on the grounds that the latter was going out of style
in the first century and rarely used (78). On more than one occasion he
decides questions of word order by appealing to normal Koine usage, which
typically puts the adjective after the noun it modifies (e.g., v. 6 [p. 81],
v. 14 [pp. 114-117]). His discussion of agapais umwn and other
variants in v. 12 (103-107) is a good illustration of the effective use of
internal evidence to make a case for a particular reading (a typesetting
error occurs in the list of variants on p. 103: P72 and its congeners read
agapais umwn, not apatais umwn as printed). Reasoned
eclectics may well reach different conclusions on several of these variants.
For example, in v. 5, external and transcriptional probabilities both
support the inclusion of the second umas. If Landon had given as
much weight in v. 6 to transcriptional as to intrinsic probabilities, he
might have come to the conclusion that scribes were more likely to
substitute the common de for the less common te when
copying the text. These differences of opinion regarding the readings chosen
as most likely to reflect the original text of Jude are to be expected when
different text-critical approaches are used. What is perhaps surprising is
that Landon agrees with the GNT4 text 74 out of 95 times (78%), a high rate
of agreement for two very different approaches.
7. Although some of Landon's arguments based on style are either convincing
or at least worth considering seriously (in addition to the examples in the
previous paragraph, cf. especially the variants discussed on pp. 63-67 and
70-77), others are problematic at best, even from the standpoint of purely
internal evidence, because they are based on so little evidence. For
example, he prefers the order Ihsou Xristou over Xristou
Ihsou in v. 1 because Jude consistently reflects this order (49), but
in fact, the occurrences of Ihsou Xristou in vv. 4, 17, 21, and
25 are all set expressions, and the other occurrence of the phrase in v. 1
does exhibit some variation in the witnesses. Again in v. 1, he rejects the
reading eqnesin because the author never refers to his readers as
Gentiles (50)--unless he does so here! The book of Jude really has too
little data to support such a statement. A little later, he suggests that
since the pattern article + adjective + noun appears in vv. 4, 6, and 10,
the same order should be accepted in v. 7: ton omoion tropon
toutois (85). However, one of these readings, ton monon despothn
qeon in v. 4, is contested, so he can really only rely on the other
two readings to establish his "pattern." Even less convincing is his
argument that kata tas epiqumias eautwn should be read in v. 18,
because the same expression in v. 16 also has the reflexive pronoun last
(125). In objection to this line of reasoning, it must be noted that one
reading does not establish a pattern! Other arguments along these lines that
are less than satisfying include Landon's suggestions that scribes conformed
the text of Jude they were copying to such far-flung passages as Acts 25:17
(v. 3 [p. 58]); Matt 23:2 (v. 9 [p. 94]); Eph 1:4 (v. 24 [p. 135]); and Rom
16:27 (v. 25 [p. 136]).
8. Several of Landon's text-critical decisions will seem to many reasoned
eclectics illustrative of the weakness inherent in ignoring external
evidence. Examples include his acceptance of swmatos mwusews in
v. 9 (supported only by 378 632 [of the manuscripts he quotes]; 93-94),
eis ton aiwna in v. 13 (supported by K 049; 111-112), and en
muriasin agiais autou in v. 14 (supported by C 323 378; 114-117).
Strong arguments based on internal evidence can be marshaled against his
readings in vv. 9 and 14, and when external evidence is taken into account,
most moderate eclectics would not give Landon's readings a second look. The
most egregious example of all is his acceptance of the variant upo
zofon agiwn aggelwn, based on a reading sanctorum angelorum sub
tenebras in Lucifer and without any real manuscript support, in v. 6
(82-84).
9. This last example raises an interesting inconsistency in regard to
Landon's application of the Kilpatrick-Elliott method, and it also serves to
highlight an obvious logical weakness with rigorous eclecticism as commonly
practiced. In a footnote dealing with the variants in vv. 22-23, Landon
cites with approval the view of Elliott concerning conjectural emendation:
"If we accept Elliott's view, Essays and Studies, p. 38 [Elliott 1992], that
the original reading at any given variation unit in the New Testament 'lies
somewhere in our extant manuscripts,' then we are obliged to find a solution
at this unit which is not based upon conjectural emendation" (132, n. 253).
He then evaluates the verbs eleeite and eleate,
decides the latter reading is the result of an Atticizing tendency of
copyists, and eliminates from further consideration all variants that have
eleate! He justifies this procedure as follows: "[If
eleeite is preferable to eleate], my search for a
solution should surely be restricted to real readings in real MSS which do
indeed preserve the form eleeite" (132). This is a ludicrous
conclusion! Just because scribes might have changed eleeite to
eleate, text-critics should not ignore the possibility that the
rest of the text they preserve has a claim to originality (Kubo argues this
very premise: that the reading of Sinaiticus should be accepted, but that
eleate should be replaced with eleeite [Kubo 1981:
253]). Since thoroughgoing eclectics consider the history of the New
Testament text in the earliest period to be irretrievable, thus justifying
their mining of readings that have support only from late minuscules, they
can have no reasonable objection to the argument that, owing to the chaotic
situation of the text in the first two centuries, some readings were
hopelessly lost from the manuscript tradition. Surely this conclusion more
consistently fits the theory of the text espoused by thoroughgoing
eclectics! Finally, to return to Landon's analysis of variants in v. 6, it
should be noted that the reading he accepts is only based on a quotation
from Lucifer; the Greek text he advocates printing is a conjecture!
10. One element that Landon's study lacks, but that a thorough study of the
text of Jude should include, is a detailed disquisition of the relationship
between the texts of Jude and 2 Peter. Ideally such a discussion should
include not only the presentation of data concerning which book was the
source of the other (Landon follows the majority opinion and believes that
Jude came first) but also an examination of the history of transmission of
the two books. Questions that might be addressed include the following: is
there evidence that scribes at certain times or in certain places tended to
conform Jude to 2 Peter or vice versa? was one book more popular than the
other? Landon does draw on data from 2 Peter when discussing several
variants, but he lacks a consistent theory of how to treat data from 2 Peter
(including variants) when dealing with variants in Jude. Because he has laid
no theoretical foundation for using material from Jude's synoptic
counterpart, his use of material from 2 Peter is not compelling.
11. Overall, Landon's work must receive a mixed evaluation: weak in its
theoretical underpinnings, stronger in its evaluation of individual
variants. On the negative side, even if Landon intends to follow the
methodology of Kilpatrick and Elliott, one would like to have seen more
theoretical justification for his adopting this approach. Also, as already
mentioned, he offers no theory for dealing with evidence from 2 Peter.
Moreover, one comes away from the study with the feeling that while he has
dealt in detail with a large number of variants, he has not sufficiently
considered patterns of variation that are evident in certain witnesses (or
text-types), patterns that might influence textual decisions. In contrast to
these weaknesses, several positive aspects of his work are evident as well.
His use of secondary sources is excellent, since, in addition to English,
French, German, and Italian works, he draws on Afrikaans, Dutch, and Swedish
studies that are inaccessible to many scholars. He brings his knowledge of
specific manuscripts, especially Psi, to bear on several of the variants he
evaluates. Finally, Landon shows considerable ingenuity in some of his
arguments for particular readings. Unfortunately, other arguments rely too
heavily on ingenuity and too little on convincing data. Scholars of textual
criticism or of the book of Jude may glean helpful insights from many of
Landon's discussions of units of variation, but his arguments cannot be
accepted uncritically, and less-experienced students should consult those
more familiar with textual criticism before accepting Landon's arguments
concerning a particular set of variations.
© TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1997.
Bibliography
Albin, C. A. 1962. Judasbrevet: Traditionen, Texten, Tolkningen. Stockholm:
Natur och Kultur.
Ehrman, Bart D. 1993. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of
Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New
York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, J. K. 1978. "In Defence of Thoroughgoing Eclecticism in New
Testament Textual Criticism." Restoration Quarterly 21: 95-115.
Elliott, J. K. 1992. Essays and Studies in New Testament Textual Criticism.
Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria, no. 3. Cordoba: Ediciones el
Almendro.
Elliott, J. K., ed., 1990. The Principles and Practice of New Testament
Textual Criticism: Collected Essays of G. D. Kilpatrick. Leuven: Leuven
University Press.
Epp, Eldon Jay 1993. "The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual
Criticism: Solution or Symptom?" In Epp and Fee, eds., 1993: 141-173.
Epp, Eldon Jay, and Fee, Gordon D., eds., 1981. New Testament Textual
Criticism, Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M.
Metzger. Oxford: Clarendon.
Epp, Eldon Jay, and Fee, Gordon D., eds., 1993. Studies in the Theory and
Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Studies and Documents, no. 45.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Fee, Gordon D. 1993. "Rigorous or Reasoned Eclecticism--Which?" In Epp and
Fee, eds., 1993: 124-140.
Kilpatrick, G. D. 1990. "Eclecticism and Atticism." In Elliott, ed., 1990:
73-79.
Kubo, Sakae 1965. P72 and the Codex Vaticanus. Studies and Documents, no.
27. Salt Lake City: Utah University Press.
Kubo, Sakae 1981. "Jude 22-23: Two Division Form or Three?" In Epp and Fee,
eds., 1981: 239-253.
Tov, Emanuel 1982. "Criteria for Evaluating Textual Readings: The
Limitations of Textual Rules." Harvard Theological Review 75: 429-448.
James R. Adair, Jr.
Scholars Press