Thu Mar 21 07:05:53 1996

From majordom  Thu Mar 21 07:05:53 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA03609; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 07:05:53 +0500
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:59:38 +0100
X-Sender: schmiul@pop.uni-muenster.de (Unverified)
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: James 2:18
Content-Length: 1684
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996 James R. Adair wrote:

> I have asked before whether Maurice (or anyone) can give me some examples =
in
> which the majority text (in the 9th/10th centuries) does _not_ contain=
 what he
> considers to be the "original" reading.

I just came across two readings in Luke 12,58 which may well meet the
criteria required. The construction runs as follows: MHPOTE KATASURH...KAI
PARADWSEI... KAI BALEI. The unusual thing about this is the future tense
(PARADWSEI, BALEI) after MHPOTE. So consequently the vast majority of
manuscripts gives the aorist subjunctive for both readings (PARADW, BALH)
in order to fit in the classical pattern. These are clearly corrections and
therefor to be judged as secondary.

What is most impressive is the fact that for the reading PARADWSEI there
seems to be _no_ Koine minuscule support (cf. "Oxford Edition" loc. cit.).
And what is even more remarkable is the manuscript support for BALEI. Since
BALEI and BALH are phonetically identical, the interchange of both forms
might have often happened by chance. Nevertheless, there are only three
"old" Koine minuscules, 399 (9th/10th centuries, von Soden K 1), 461 (835
A.D., von Soden K 1), and 1351 (10th century, von Soden K x) which give the
reading BALEI, and -very impressive- in 399 BALEI is corrected to BALH. In
my opinion, this has to be seen as an indication of the growing awareness
of the differences in _grammar_.

To sum up: The aorist subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) in Luke 12,58 are not
"original" readings. The "original" readings (PARADWSEI, BALEI) as future
indicatives are absent from the majority text tradition of the 9th/10th
centuries.

Ulrich Schmid, M=FCnster

Back