Ancient Liturgy and NT TC

In the whole book of Heb., the word τε appears twenty-one times, in the following instances: i. 3; ii. 4, 11; iv. 12; v. 1, 7, 14; vi. 2 (here it appears twice), 4, 5, 19; viii. 3; ix. 1, 2, 9, 19; x. 33; xi. 32; xii. 2. It appears together with καί in the following cases: ii. 4, 11; iv. 12; 5, 1 (the case here examined), 7, 14; vi. 2, 4, 5 (but the καί appears in v. 6), 19; viii, 3; ix, 1 (but καί is before τε, and is omitted in P46, B and many minuscule manuscripts), 2, 9, 19; x. 33; xi, 32. However, the syntagm τε καί, that is, without any word separating them, appears only in ii. 4; iv. 12; v. 1 (again, this is the instance we're examining), 7, 14; vi. 19; viii. 3; ix. 9; x. 33; xi. 32. Allow me to show you the verses that belong to this last category:

συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ θεοῦ σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσιν καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν. (ii. 4)
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (King James translation)

Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐνεργὴς καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον καὶ διϊκνούμενος ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶν τε καὶ μυελῶν, καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας: (iv. 12)
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

ὃς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων προσενέγκας καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας, (v. 7)
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

τελείων δέ ἐστιν ἡ στερεὰ τροφή, τῶν διὰ τὴν ἕξιν τὰ αἰσθητήρια γεγυμνασμένα ἐχόντων πρὸς διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ. (14)
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν καὶ εἰσερχομένην εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος, (vi. 19)
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας καθίσταται: ὅθεν ἀναγκαῖον ἔχειν τι καὶ τοῦτον ὃ προσενέγκῃ. (viii. 3)
For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

ἥτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, καθ' ἣν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα, (ix. 9)
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

τοῦτο μὲν ὀνειδισμοῖς τε καὶ θλίψεσιν θεατριζόμενοι, τοῦτο δὲ κοινωνοὶ τῶν οὕτως ἀναστρεφομένων γενηθέντες: (x. 33)
Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.

Καὶ τί ἔτι λέγω; ἐπιλείψει με γὰρ διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος περὶ Γεδεών, Βαράκ, Σαμψών, Ἰεφθάε, Δαυίδ τε καὶ Σαμουὴλ καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, (xi. 32)
And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

Please note that in the verses I've quoted here above the word τε is omitted, in certain manuscripts [a], in ii. 4 only, at least according to the NA28 critical apparatus. Furthermore, the manuscripts that omit that word are no older than 6th century. I believe hence that it's allowed, firstly, to state that the author of Heb. uses this two-word syntagm frequently, in his letter, to put into a pair two words with semantic affinity, either for opposition (as in v. 14) or resemblance (in other cases). An exception of this be made for xi. 32, where this syntagm is used at the end of a list.
Worthy of note are viii. 3 and ix. 9: in both of them, the words δῶρα and θυσίαι are put in pair through the τε καί syntagm; furthermore, in viii. 3 they're also accompanied by the same verb used in v. 1, that is, προσφέρω.
As far as we can know, hence, to sum up, we can determine the following things:
1: the author uses coherently and frequently the syntagm τε καί to unite two words, with only one semantic exception and one "critical doubt";
2: except for v. 1, the same expression occurs twice in the text, none of them being somehow different in some manuscript, according to the NA28; in one instance, the whole structure is accompanied by the same verb of v. 1.
As far as I can say, hence, I believe there's a case for the τε in the text. However, since I'm a human being, and not one of the smartest ones, I'd be happier to receive your eventual corrections.

As regards John Chrysostom, it'd be interesting to do a textual analysis of his works, in order to see whether he himself omitted this word or it was removed later; I now nothing about that, though, so I'm not able to say anything.

I hope these notes of mine could be of some help.

[a] In ii. 4, the manuscripts that omit it are P (6th century), 0243 (10th century), 0278 (9th century), 33 (9th century), 81 (11th century), 323 (12th century), 365 (12th century), 629 (14th century), 630 (12th-13th century), 1505 (12th century), 1739 (10th century)

Update: as regards the papyri which omit it, I noticed that P46 and B (most ancient sources among those mentioned) both belong to the Alexandrian tradition; as regards the other, they're quite recent documents, although we've got to admit that Ψ belongs to a "mixed" tradition, mostly Alexandiran, though.
As always, I'm not infallible, and I'd like y'all to take my answer as a simple note, hoping it'll help.

Edited by Lorenzo M - 12/9/2016, 22:07

Surely being dogmatic, in this field, is the worst thing we can do, and I appreciate the fact this forum does not contain a dogmatic leaning, as happens in many so-called "scientific" forums.
Hence, in this scientific spirit, allow me to give you an answer to your objections. Please note that my purpose - as well as the one of anybody else here, I suppose - is not to cause my opinion to prevail, but rather discuss about it in a pristine and genuine scientific mindset, in order to point out errors wherever they are, whether in my or in anybody else's statements. Hence, I begin this post of mine thanking you for your objections, which surely will allow us to examine more deeply the topic here discussed.
I shall answer to the second objection first, as it's the one that requires more energy (and about which, I admit, I have written but two "Update" lines without any scientific context or explanaition - this is because I wrote them just before I went to bed, maybe, or only because I'm too thick to even consider the whole post before I answer), that is, I shall consider firstly the sources which do not contain this word.
The most relevant manuscripts that are witnesses of the absence of τε are P⁴⁶ and B, as they're the oldest ones; hence, I shall start from these. As we already said, these both belong to the Alexandrian textual type: hence, they belong to the same geographic area. In fact, we see that, among the old (that is, no older than the 5th century) witnesses, only some Alexandrian texts contain it. In fact, the other two sources that contain this changement are D¹ and Ψ. The first one, originally, was written in the 6th century, but as the aritical apparatus states, D¹ means that it is a lectio that does not belong to the original manuscript, which causes us to think that it is even more recent than the text itself (I have somewhere read that the second hand, the one here considered, is dated to the 7th century, but I don't even remember where, so don't take it for granted). Please note that D is also the only Western-type text, so the only witness of this changement outside of the Alexandrian text family. However, as we've seen, this witness is quite too recent to deny any kind of influence from previous Alexandrian-type texts [a]. The last source, the Ψ text, is a 9th century manuscript which has been reckoned to belong to a mixed Alexandrian-Byzantine family. Hence, among the four witnesses mentioned in the critical apparatus, two belong to the same textual family, one partly, and one is probably influenced by it. That is, we don't have independent sources that testify this changement. On the other side, other manuscripts both in the Alexandrian and in outter/mixed text families (א, A, C, ecc.; for the sake of the argument, manuscripts older than 6th century be excluded) do contain this word. Unluckly, I have to admit, as I already said, that this answer is only partly complete, as I have never had the possibility to see either a photo or the original D manuscript page, this making it even harder to me to even imagine what NA28 means with "D¹" [b].
As regards your first objection, I do recognise that it is true that a word is more likely to fall, rather than to be added to the text. However, this isn't impossible. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that not only the words of 5, 1 (maybe); 8, 3 and 9, 9 are the same, but also that the concept expressed in the nearby paragraphs is always the same; in fact, all of these three passages are related to a precise correspondence between Jesus, the celestial priest, and the priests of the Temple in Jerusalem:

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. (Heb. 5, 1-10; King James translation).

Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (ibidem, 8, 1-13).

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. (ibidem, 9, 1-18).

Many scholars have pointed out that Hebrews is written in a quite "pure" Greek [c], and some even believe it to be a homily [d], although with the addition of final greetings. This being said, the repetition of the same words could as well be a figure of speech, recalling to the mind of the reader/listener contents previously said (i. e., a geminatio. I know this is a quite odd idea, but we're not to dogmatically exclude it. Although it's true that words are generally added, rather than removed, this is not an unchanging paradigm.

This being said, I have to say that your arguments are very good, that caused me to be a bit more cautious (although I haven't changed mind yet; I had thought about the assimilation too, but at first I'd rejected it, now I can see it's not an easily "rejectable" objection), and that I would not be surprised at all, if somehow we discovered that the τε wasn't there.

Hope this can be somehow useful and help,
LM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[a] Furthermore, if I remember correctly, D is considered to belong to class II, which makes it under the influence of Alexandrian text types. However, my memory often is less than a joke, so don't take this information for granted either (though I'm sure you'll be able to verify it by yourself).
[b] What I mean is that it seems quite odd to me that the original text contained this word, and then it was removed later. Were this true, there'd be an answer to your first objection, but I strongly doubt it to be true. I rather believe that this portion of text was written by a latter copyist, the first one not having written it at all. For the sake of the argument, let's only remember that the text is not the one written by the first hand.
[c] See Powell, Introducing the New Testament: a historical, literary, and theological survey, 2009, Baker Academic; See also Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 6:14.
[d] See Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2004, Oxford University Press, p. 411.

Edited by Lorenzo M - 17/9/2016, 15:22

Yes, forgive me, I meant the opposite, and it's not the first time I do the exact same error.
As regards D, I know it is the Clarmontanus, I hope I haven't written Bezae in the text (Bezae contains Gospel and Acts, if I ain't wrong). The point is that, if the NA28 critical apparatus states that only D¹ contains this omission, this supposedly means that both the original text and the following corrections did contain the τε, while the first corrector had removed it. Otherwise it'd have written D*, D2, etc. This is what surprises me, as this makes no sense at all, so my desire to see the page was in order to see what this correction exactly consists in.
The point is that D's textual family is more or less Western, and since it belongs to class II, we are not to exclude that the codex (or one of the authors of the corrections?) has received some Alexandrian influence.
Thank you for the pics, images of old texts always restore my happiness

I have read again the discussion all over for a research of mine about textual criticism. I have to admit that now I do agree with your position.