Wed Jan 31 20:39:48 1996
From majordom Wed Jan 31 20:39:48 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA27159; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 20:39:48 +0500
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 20:37:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Cc: 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: 10255
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, James R. Adair wrote:
(Well -- you wanted to spark some discussion in the TC listserver....) *:-)
> KAUXHSWMAI may have been the more difficult reading when Paul wrote, but
I would not think a more "normal" Pauline word would have been "more
difficult" in Paul's own day.
> with the frenzy toward martyrdom that swept over the church from the late
> (?) second through the early fourth centuries, KAUQHSOMAI would not have
> been considered difficult at all to copyists--it might even have been
> favored on theological grounds.
Knowing the great tendency to revere martyrs in the early centuries,
there is a point here. But I would see this a a clear reason to continue
to preserve among the majority of witnesses the "more difficult" Pauline
reading of KAUQHSWMAI. If there were tendency toward a wholesale
alteration from "boasting" to "burning", I would suspect certain Fathers
would have railed against deliberate alteration of the text merely to
support martyrdom by fire.
Which raises the more interesting question, since more saints appear to
have been crucified, shot through with arrows, flayed alive, and beheaded
than burnt, would not the tendency be more for the martyrially-inclined to
favor a more "universal" reading of "give my body that I may boast"?
> As for the reading KAUQHSWMAI, I have my
> doubts that many scribes found it all that difficult.
The majority certainly did not. But the (relatively easy to explain)
minority who did choose to alter it obviously found it "difficult". It
would be much harder to explain why a perfectly acceptable original
reading of "boast" would be altered by nearly all scribes due to a
perceived glorification of martyrdom.
> True, it's not
> "good" Greek, but so many mss, particularly later ones, exhibit similar
> shifts in spelling, that the fact that it appears in the majority of mss
> does not seem very remarkable.
The bigger problem is that it not only is "not good Greek" but it blatantly
appears erroneous by suggesting a non-existent future subjunctive! I fail
to see how scribes in the main would simply allow such an anomalous
reading to stand, and why the vast majority -- even if they did create the
reading "burnt" -- would not have at least followed suit with C D F G L et
al. and at least read something which was eminently grammatical. This is
a far greater matter than the mere issue of martyrdom.
> > More problematic than either of these matters is the supposition that a
> > single scribe creating a more difficult reading by an error or hearing
> > would somehow produce a MS copy which then would become the mother of
> > 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.
>
> But in fact, this is exactly what happens in numerous instances in the ms
> tradition: a change in one ms, which happens to be one that is copied
> frequently, is perpetuated throughout the tradition, while the original
> reading in other, less copied, mss is reduced to a minority.
Only from the eclectic perspective *:-) *:-) The Byzantine-priority view
would maintain that a reading which became altered would, in the normal
course of events be corrected within one or two copying generations, and
only in the case of "local text" traditions would such readings be
perpetuated over several centuries -- and even then never gaining the
ascendancy.
The question of the frequency of copying MSS is moot. Some MSS might
never be copied, others extremely frequently. In the absence of proof
regarding which MSS were or were not copied at frequent rates,
statistically the evidence points to the fact that the Byzantine MSS and
they alone were those most frequently copied outside of local text
situations. WHY they were frequently copied is another matter altogether,
but I would venture that they were most frequently copied because they
reflected the text in general (not localized) use.
> Ms traditions
> subjected to frequent copying leave themselves open to more scribal
> changes, intentional or unintentional, than less frequently copied
> traditions.
Certainly. By number there are probably 10 times more variant readings in
the aggregate among the numerous Byzantine MSS than among the Alexandrian,
Caesarean or Western MSS. But this is only to be expected, since the
Byzantine MSS outnumber the others by 100:1 or greater.
However, proportionally -- on a per-MS basis -- the Byzantine MSS are FAR
less liable to variation than those of the minority texttypes (this was a
primary conclusion of my dissertation on "Scribal Habits among MSS of the
Apocalypse", Southwestern Seminary, Ft.Worth, 1982).
> > A major problem with modern eclecticism (whether reasoned or rigorous) is
> > its failure to ignore the problems of the historical transmission of the
> > text throughout history; this is one such case where attention to the
> > historical possibilities of manuscript transmission weighs heavily in
> > determining a conclusion.
>
> I assume Maurice means that eclectics fail to "take into account" the
> problems of the history of the text :-). I agree, this is a serious
> problem, and one that must be addressed if better critical editions are
> to be created.
This has been a recurring lament of H.H.Oliver and Kenneth W. Clark as
well as Eldon J. Epp. Clark basically suggested that all the efforts of
eclectic methodology -- based as they are without a history of textual
transmission -- are doomed to failure, and that some new approach and new
angle must be essayed if any "progress" is to be made in the quest of the
original text. As one who learned his textual criticism first under
Clark, I must say that I appreciated his openness and encouragement to
proceed in the direction I have taken.
> > That an error producing a "more difficult" reading could so easily corrupt
> > the mass of the MS tradition bodes ill for the certain recovery of the
> > original text by any currently-recognized and responsible principles of NT
> > textual criticism.
>
> Perhaps so, but it seems nevertheless to be the case, both here and in
> numerous other instances. Westcott and Hort identified more than 70
> passages in which they believed "primitive corruption" occurred and
> obliterated the original reading from the ms tradition.
Unfortunately, what W-H advocated in such situations was basically
conjectural emendation, which their own principles would not permit.
Modern eclecticism, whether reasoned or rigorous, similarly eschews
conjecture (save for Aland's notorious Acts 16:12 case in the GNT3, now --
at long last! -- finally "proven" by a few unnamed mss of the Vulgate).
Appeal to "primitive error" -- so far as I know -- has not been in vogue
since W-H; and such appeal establishes nothing in regard to the present case.
I would be desirous in learning of the "numerous other instances" in
which a patently "more difficult" reading which is NOT considered to be
the original autograph text has been perpetuated in the mass of the MS
and versional traditions. The examples should be instructive.
> What NT text
> critics should learn from this situation is that they are not nearly as
> close to the "original text" as some would claim.
As regards modern eclecticism, I would heartily agree *:-) This also is
Eldon J. Epp's position, as is well known: "We know too much to believe
the old; we do not know enough to create the new." The Byzantine-priority
advocates are not suffering under the same stigma, however.
> In light of the previous discussion, I would answer as follows. (1) The
> scribes in the Byzantine tradition (for the most part) probably did _not_
> know that the reading KAUQHSWMAI was grammatically questionable;
? - I am nonplussed. A future subjunctive, where no case of such appears
to exist elsewhere? And this among Greek-speaking scribes for the most
part? I am willing to excuse those primarily Latin-speaking scribes who
knew not what they did, whether preparing bilingual MSS or even Greek MSS.
But in those cases, the Greek suffers far worse grammatical damage by the
pen than is found in the typical Byzantine MS. The fact that some scribes
definitely altered the problematic reading into the more appropriate
-SOMAI gives indication that the grammatical problem surrounding this
reading must have been noted (unless one would argue that the -W-/-O-
interchange is purely phonetic, which I doubt in the present case). As
Cassiodorus might have said, "our scribes may be ignorant, but
grammatically they ain't dumb." *:-)
>2) the
> glorification of martyrdom belies the claim that the majority reading was
> contextually problematic;
And I differ as explained in detail above.....
> (3) the scribes did not know that alternate
> readings existed, and if they had know, they would have naturally assumed
> that their own tradition was correct.
But cross-corrections in MSS shows clearly that scribes DID know
alternate readings existed. They DID have other exemplars with which to
compare, and if this reading in fact stemmed from an out-and-out error,
why would it not have been swiftly corrected within a copying generation
or two and basically withdrawn from circulation?
Certainly scribes would assume that their own tradition was correct --
but their "tradition" stemmed from the MSS they were copying and the
liturgical use of those texts in the church. And these all conspired to
maintain only the text which was "traditional" for the Byzantine
transmission-history. Had an original "boasting" variant been part of
the normal liturgy, there would be no question which direction the
majority of MSS would have been likely to take. Had the various
exemplars at hand at any stage of transmission been numerically in favor
of "boast", there is little likelihood that a "later" upstart reading
which was not only "more difficult" but also "grammatically untenable"
would ever have gained the ascendancy.
So, to me the issue remains fairly simple, but not simplistic.....
Back