Tue Mar 19 21:16:22 1996

From majordom  Tue Mar 19 21:16:22 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA25582; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 21:16:22 +0500
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 21:13:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: MT/BT
In-Reply-To: <314EF46C.6EA4@uni-muenster.de>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3185
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, Klaus Wachtel wrote:

> > According to Tischendorf's 8th edition, EK is supported by K and L among
> > the uncials as well as virtually all the minuscules. 
> 
> This is true for the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1 as well. All three 
> instances are included in "Text & Textwert", all three have a remarkably pure 
> K-attestation, hardly lacking any Kr- or Kx-ms. 

I see a major difference in cases where accidental omission due to 
homoioteleuton could be the cause of such variation, however.  Certainly 
it would be difficult to argue that the longer reading in 2:23 was added 
merely to give balance to the passage or to provide a contrast in 
"Johannine style" if such were not original.  The reading in 3:1, 
however, can and has been argued as non-original, since KAI ESMEN may 
have originated as a gloss.

With 2:18 however, the principle of the harder reading and that which 
would give rise to the other alternative(s) takes precedence, since 
accidental error (even by attraction to EK in the second clause) seems 
less likely than the deliberate attempt to obviate a difficulty.  

Note that I am not holding to a double standard: the issue in 1Jn 2:23 and
3:1 is predicated upon the principle of continuity of attestation in the
pre-10th century period, followed by a surprising lack of same after the
10th century.  The case of James 2:18 reflects continued perpetuation of a
non-accidental variant by the minuscules of what I would argue had been in
the majority of (now) non-extant uncials which were discarded or destroyed
once the minuscule copying revolution had occurred.  (Of course, like the
homoioteleuton argument, one could also argue that EK in the primary
minuscule exemplar was also an error which became the mother of all
subsequent copies; I will not deny that this line of argument is possible,
but I think it less probable since accidental error is less likely to 
appear in cases of substitution as opposed to omission). 

Also, I probably should explain that my presumption of homoioteleuton and
the originality of the longer reading in 1 Jn.2:23 and 3:1 is NOT shared
by my co-editor, William Pierpont, who argues for the shorter reading in
each case, based upon the relative independence of the minuscule MSS.  My
mind is not fully made up on this point, and Pierpont may well be correct,
though I think that if so there is a problem with ignoring the continuity
of those longer readings from the second through the tenth century; 
further, on stylistic grounds, the longer reading appears to be the most
appropriate. 
  
Should I end up resolving the issue in a different direction from which I 
am currently inclined, I would still probably include those longer 
readings, albeit in brackets.


=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   
=========================================================================

Back