Sat Feb 3 18:40:48 1996

From majordom  Sat Feb  3 18:40:48 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA07476; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 18:40:48 +0500
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 17:42:03 +0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery)
Subject: Re: Future subjunctive
Content-Length: 1919
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

James R. Adair responded to  Maurice Robinson;
>> I maintain that such
>> a variant-by-variant defense CAN be performed successfully, in which case
>> internal evidence alone argues for Byzantine-priority as well as the the
>> subsequent and secondary nature of the Alexandrian, Western, and other
>> texttypes.  As Colwell did say from within an eclectic perspective, "Hort
>> has put genealogical blinders on our eyes."
>
>In light of my earlier comments, I believe that what you suggest is exactly
>what must be done: each reading must be evaluated one by one, with more
>emphasis placed on internal than on external evidence.  Individual
>readings in one witness or tradition will need to be compared to other
>readings in that witness/tradition to see if any patterns emerge that
>would indicate a theological or transcriptional Tendenz.  However, no
>appeal should be made to the "superiority" of one family of mss over
>another, since this appeal just begs the text-critical question.
>
I would agree with this statement.  I would add that on internal grounds
the explanation of the readings at I Cor. 13:3 is KAUXHSWMAI then
KAUQHSWMAI then KAUQHSOMAI.  When you consider intrinsic evidence this is
most likely.  When you consider transcriptional probilities this is more
logical.  The argument that the Byzantine scribes would not have allowed
the future subjunctive to stand had they known other mss that had either of
the other readings begs the question.  What scribes did was copy mss.  To
assume that they would not have let stand this reading for so long (if a
reasonable argument) speaks also against such a reading being original.  I
think the effort to argue for the originality of the future subjunctive is
made primarily on the assumption that the Byzantine text more closely
represents the original text.

Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net

Back