Wed Jan 31 18:36:13 1996
From majordom Wed Jan 31 18:36:13 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA26857; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:36:13 +0500
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:33:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Future subjunctive
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 14435
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote:
> >reading KAUQHSWMAI of Psi "and many others" actually encompasses the
> >entire Byzantine/Majority tradition, and this fact should not be minimized
> >in the discussion which follows).
>
> In addition to a number of Fathers beginning with Tertullian, but I do not
> think that counting mss is the name of the game.
Nor do I per se; however, when speaking of scribal proclivities and
tendencies, the question of whether an error will become so widespread as
to encompass virtually the entire manuscript tradition must be taken
seriously.
> There must be a distinction between "more difficult" and absurd. The
> origin of KAUQHSOMAI is difficult to account for unless a scribe made the
> mistake that introduced the bogus form KAUQHSWMAI. The latter is clearly
> the middle of this equation.
But is "to be burnt" absurd? Even the 1881 Revised Version and the 1901
American Standard Version continued to read with the Byzantine text, and
this reading is still followed by the RSV and the NIV, among many other
translations -- and it certainly cannot be argued that any of these
translations felt compelled to preserve the KJV/TR reading. Obviously
modern translators have text-critical opinions which differ radically from
the modern eclectic school as regards their view as to what might be
absurd *:-). Actually, the meaning of "give my body that I might boast"
is also a crux interpretum which is not readily resolved either.
But even allowing that a scribe might accidentally create a term which
would be either "difficult" or "absurd" -- why then would few (if any)
subsequent scribes ever attempt to correct such a reading? Of course,
if the reading were actually that of the autograph, scribes would tend to
preserve it regardless of perceived absurdity or error (e.g. "Jeremiah"
in Mt.27:9).
> >rare case when speaking of NT Greek MSS), an error of hearing between the
> >phonemes Chi and Theta would not be all that likely, since one is a
> >gutteral and the other a labial. Yet even if phonetic confusion occurred,
I need to correct myself here -- Chi is a gutteral, but Theta is a
dental. Slip of the mind while the fingers typed away.
> We have ample examples of confusion of sounds more desparate than this.
Agreed. However, there are astoundingly few cases which can be alleged
where such confusion (producing an "absurdity") would be perpetuated in
more than a dozen or so MSS -- not the bulk of the entire MS tradition.
This is why O'Callaghan's claims on the 7Q4 papyrus being Markan can be
dismissed -- he not only has to posit an error of omission but also a
change from a delta to a theta producing a nonsense spelling, neither of
which has any other textual support.
> However, the suggestion of an error of hearing was only a suggestion.
> Others have suggested that a scribe would have changed KAUXHSWMAI to
> KAUQHSWMAI because of other difficulties (Metzger, p. 564).
The error of hearing could occur even in manual copying, since scribes
would read aloud as they copied, and confusion could occur at any one of
four steps in a manual copying process (Metzger, Text of the NT). The
Metzger Textual Commentary is of course trying to defend the reading the
editors favored, but I still think they are clutching at some very
thin straws on this one.
> >virtually all subsequent MSS. This hypothesis assumes that no
> >contemporary or later scribe would ever notice the difference, let alone
> >simply correct such an error by cross-comparison with another pre-existing
> >exemplar.
>
> You speak as though every scribe or even most scribes knew many other mss.
> Such was not the case. The Alexandrian tradition was hidden from most of
> the scribes for a very long time.
I certainly would agree on that latter point, since I would consider the
entire Alexandrian tradition primarily to reflect a "local text" of Egypt
which did not have significant impact in the primary Greek-speaking
portion of the Empire, from Southern Italy through Northern Palestine.
But monasteries and scriptoriums did exist scattered in all these
regions, and scribes did have access to more MS copies than the one
exemplar they were working with, as evidenced frequently by contemporary
corrections from MSS of differing families and texttypes which appear in
our present copies. I would not suggest that scribes would have much
knowledge of MS traditions beyond their own local area or even their own
monastery or church situation, but I would maintain that additional
copies for comparison and cross-correction were generally available,
even if not in quantity.
> I don't quite understand this assertion. You seem to be saying that the
> flow of mss traditions was an unbroken stream. Such was not the case.
> There were major interruptions in the transmission of the text of the NT,
> the fact that Latin eclipsed much of the tradition in the west, the north
Since the Greek tradition appears never to have entered the West, I would
not suggest any "eclipse"; rather I would suggest as most handbooks that
the Latin had its origins in a European and African form, which derived
most probably from central Italy and Rome on the one hand and Carthage on
the other hand. The origin of the Latin tradition would have been Greek
MSS, but of a limited variety reflecting the "popular" Western variety of
text during the early "uncontrolled popular text" period before AD 200.
The stream of transmission certainly has its byways and rivulets, but
basically there remains a constant flow, and it would exist in the
primary Greek-speaking portion of the Empire more than in the fringe
areas where local texts would abound.
> African and middle Eastern traditions went underground because of the
> Muslim takeover there
Although the Muslim conquest did occur, there is little evidence that the
stream of transmission was in any serious way affected. The Coptic
church and its MSS (Alexandrian text) have continued in an unbroken chain
to the present day, even under the harshest Islamic restrictions. The
Coptic church did not have to go "underground" -- it is true that
non-Muslims were penalized with heavier taxes to force conversion, but
those who held out were permitted freedom of worship in Egypt during the
centuries in question.
> the Byzantine traditions eventually flooded into
> Europe in the Crusades and with the fall of Constantinople. Majority text
> people speak as though none of these happened.
Byzantine Greek MSS were brought into the West after the sack of
Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. However, the Western Churches
and monastaries had little use for the MSS written in a Greek they could
not read. That the Textus Receptus happened to be created initially by
Erasmus from the (primarily) Byzantine MSS he was able to obtain in
Western monasteries in and around Basel does not imply that the Byzantine
Textform in any way ever influenced the Latin Church tradition in Western
Europe. Even the Complutensian Polyglot continually had to place &&&&&&
in its Latin text where the basically Byzantine Greek text of that edition
had a longer reading. But there was no cross-influence from the Byzantine
Textform which affected Western Europe until long AFTER the Reformation
took hold.
The continued use and perpetuation of the Byzantine text remained centered
in Greece and Asia Minor throughout the entire period of Greek MS
transmission. Those favoring a Byzantine-priority hypothesis (which is
not precisely the same as a majority text position) clearly would
recognize the precise facts of history along with their impact, exactly as
they occurred.
> >It is also significant that the Western tradition (D F G, as well as the
> >Old Latin, known to be 2nd century in origin) would have virtually
> >unanimously accepted such an "difficult" erroneous reading and perpetuated
> >it (though changing the apparent subjunctive to an indicative -- another
> >case of moving toward an "easier" reading, but this time grammatically).
> >Yet under such a hypothesis, there still remained MSS of that era (P46)
> >and even two or more centuries later (Aleph A B) which still maintained
> >the supposed "original" reading whereby the "difficult reading" error
> >could easily have been corrected.
>
> Apparently they did and for an even longer period if the bonehead reading
> were original.
Let me once more suggest that the term "absurd" or even "bonehead" is
really unfair to the translators of the ERV/ASV/RSV/NIV etc., as well as
being clearly prejudicial. An assessment such as "more difficult"
definitely would be preferable. *:-) The question remains, however, in
light of my above paragraph, that if the difficult reading were in fact
so problematic, why is it that so few scribes after the 4th century ever
attempted to correct it, when such correction of difficult readings is
presumed to be a genuine scribal characteristic -- especially of
Byzantine-era scribes?
> I find it very difficult to think that scribes would have corrected
> KAUQHSWMAI to KAUXHSWMAI instead of KAUQHSOMAI.
I personally would agree. And in fact (assuming KAUQHSWMAI to be
original) more scribes DID make the alteration from the apparent
problematic future (?) subjunctive into KAQHSOMAI than made the
correction to the "easier" reading of KAUXHSWMAI. I suspect the handful
of witnesses that went for the -X- in place of the -Q- did so quite
deliberately and in order to smooth a perceived difficulty by choosing a
more "Pauline" word rather than perpetuate a reading which would still
remain difficult of interpretation, even were the -W- altered to -O-.
> >The problem comes down to this: WHY -- on what reasonable grounds --
> >should the vast majority of all MSS ever have perpetuated a reading which
> >they knew was grammatically questionable and contextually problematic,
> >assuming that a perfectly good alternative existed in variant readings
> >known and perpetuated in either the Latin or Alexandrian traditions.
>
> This assumes that the Byzantine scribes knew those mss, which simply was
> not the case. Tischendorf found aleph in 1854. Vaticanus was descovered
> in the Vatican in the 17th century. P46 was discovered in this century.
> Its easy to imagine different scenarios, but the reality is that a reading
> in the vast majority of the ms tradition can be wrong.
I certainly would not suggest that any Byzantine scribe knew the readings
of the Alexandrian MSS. Some may have, on a small scale, but most were
familiar with and content to deal with the text which had continually
been preserved in their locality -- a text which, even though with small
differences in subgroupings, nevertheless remained basically constant
during the entire period of MS transmission from the 4th century through
the 16th. The problem reverts back to transmissional history, and, in
regard to the present reading, exactly HOW a "more difficult" reading,
supposedly created in error by a single scribe (maybe even by a small
number of scribes on different occasions) could not only remain
uncorrected by subsequent scribes, but also grow and multiply to
overwhelm the entire MS tradition, when a far easier and apparently more
"logical" Pauline term was theoretically the autograph. I simply fail to
see the logic in such a scenario.
> For the Byzantine scribes who preferred KAUQHSOMAI, KAUXHSWMAI would have
> been a more "difficult" alternative. If a person gave up one's body, how
> could they "glory" in it.
And equally, if it had been "given up", how could it be burnt? I fail to
see any logical connection here, nor do I see in PARADW TO SWMA MOU a
clear meaning to the scribe viewing it from either reading.
> The reading KAUQHSWMAI/KAUQHSOMAI would have been very unlikely in the time
> of Paul.
And of course, since it would be a hapax usage of the verb in this
context within Paul. But likewise, KAUXHSWMAI in conjunction with PARADW
and SWMA also would be a hapax usage in Paul, so this approach seems to
me to lead nowhere.
> (Daniel is most likely not the catelist here.)
Agreed -- I only pointed out the incongruity of the N27 edition putting
the cross-reference to Daniel in their margin, when that cross-reference
could only point to the Byzantine reading and not the Alexandrian.
> After Nero used
> Christians to light his games and martyrdom came to be practiced, the
> alteration of the text to include burning is much more likely.
But this would take us right back to the first century and even the time
of Paul (depending on a second Roman imprisonment and its chronology), so
the point of the Byzantine reading may have a definite reference (but I
would not argue it or press it).
> It is very
> difficult to reject the reading of P46, aleph, A, B, the "queen" of the
> cursives, the Coptic tradition, Clement Origen and Jerome on such shaky
> ground as you present.
Since I would not consider my line of argument to be "shaky" in this
regard, I do not think there is as much serious weakness with the
Byzantine reading in this instance as there is with the Alexandrian.
As for the testimony cited, I am not surprised that MSS with a likely
Egyptian connection (P46 Aleph, A, B) would tend to agree with the Egyptian
version (Coptic) which shares the Alexandrian (local) texttype. MS 33 --
whatever its origin -- maintains those connections, probably through its
uncial exemplar. Clement of Alexandria and Origen who spent time in
Egypt also do not move this reading beyond a limited local text status.
Jerome's influence is through scholarly MSS provided him in Palestine,
either by way of Eusebius, coming from Origen or directly from the
scholars in Alexandria. So basically I still see the Alexandrian reading
as maintaining the localized Egyptian connection, and thus far easier to
dismiss than the circumstance of the remainder of the MS tradition.
=========================================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina
=========================================================================
Back