Sat Mar 23 18:03:34 1996

From majordom  Sat Mar 23 18:03:34 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA15217; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 18:03:34 +0500
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 18:00:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: James 2:18
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 4738
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote:

> 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. 

Although unusual, the future tense after MHPOTE is not unique to the
critical text, but is also found in the Byzantine Textform in Mk.14:2
(MHPOTE QORUBOS ESTAI) and Heb.3:12 (MHPOTE ESTAI).  By the analogy given,
the Byzantine scribes should have been as swift to "correct" those
instances as well as in Lk.12:58.  Since they did not, the question is
whether the Alexandrian scribes may have had reason to alter the clause to
the future tense and to depart from the subjunctive. 

Blass-Debrunner note specifically that it is the introduction of the
future tense which is anomalous, since in some MSS "the fut.ind. has also
been introduced to a very limited degree in the very places where it would
not have been permissible in classical...usually with the aor.subj. as
variant" (sec.369[2])

More to the point, Bl-D. sec.370 note that MH "is combined in classical 
with the subjunctive if the anxiety is directed towards warding off 
something still dependent on the will, with the indicative of all tenses 
if directed toward something which has already taken place or is entirely 
independent of the will .... (1) usually strengthened by POTE or PWS ... 
and then always with the aor.subj. .... This construction is evidently 
literary and not a part of the vernacular."

Note within the context of Lk.12:58, the act of the will appears to be 
lacking in the final clauses, thereby giving some reason to alter the 
tense to the indicative.  The Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if 
not the classical perspective.  

The use of the fut.indic. in Lk.12:58 appears thus to be a late variant 
created within the Alexandrian texttype, and an alteration reflecting 
common vernacular rather than normal literary style.  I therefore am not 
particularly surprised to find the non-Byzantine reading shifting to the 
future indicative here.  Rather than a mark of "originality" this use 
clearly seems to indicate something of a secondary nature; the later 
scribes did not have to "discover" grammar -- these principles were 
already part of their stock in trade. 

Robertson (p.987) also points out that the "ancient idiom" was that "where
in pure final sentences a past tense of the ind. was used if it is
distinctly implied that the purpose was not attained .... As a strictly
final particle it [MHPOTE] occurs either with the subj. or the future
ind., though the subj. is more common.  For the fut. ind. note Mt.7:6
([Alexandrian text]...though the [Byzantine] aor.subj. has support),
Mk.14:2...[mentions Lk.12:58 Alextxt also].  Both subj. and fut.ind. 
likewise occur in Mt.13:15 MH POTE IDWSIN -- KAI IASOMAI" [Byz and Alex
here agree]. 

It seems that the "grammatically-oriented" Byzantine scribes should also 
have been working overtime to "correct" the futures which remain within 
the Byzantine text in these other places rather than spending all their 
grammatical effort on Lk.12:58 and Mt.7:6.  Obviously, I fail to see any 
"error" in the Byzantine reading in light of all these comments, let 
alone any indication that the Byzantine scribes were any more likely to 
"correct" the grammar (when such was not needed) as opposed to the 
Alexandrian scribes simply abandoning the more literary form for the more 
common vernacular.  

I would further suggest, in light of certain MSS having altered the order 
of the text from SE PARADW into PARADW SE that this may well have given 
impetus for other scribes coming upon such in their exemplars to simply 
create PARADWSEI from that latter combination.  BALH and BALEI are of 
course homonymic and more likely the result of itacism than any other 
cause, but if a PARADW SE had become PARADWSEI, a "grammatical" scribe 
would have little option but to render BALH as BALLEI, else the 
construction would suffer.

To sum up from my viewpoint: The aorist subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) in Luke 
12,58 are clearly the original readings, and the future indicatives 
(PARADWSEI, BALEI) are merely grammatical shifts to the common vernacular 
which were likely occasioned by a transposition and scribal confusion 
plus required grammatical correction following that confusion.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.            Assoc.Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back