Sun Apr 14 17:46:26 1996

From majordom  Sun Apr 14 17:46:26 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00148; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:46:26 +0500
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:43:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Lk.12.58 once more
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2181
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


One more note regarding the Lk.12.58 future vs. subjunctive issue: in 
the latter portion of the Mt.5.25 parallel to Lk.12.58, Codex Bezae 
reflects the Byzantine inclusion of SE PARADW following O KRITHS, but
has the future PARADWSEI instead of the subjunctive PARADW.

Since a claim was made regarding "intrinsic originality" of the futures 
as opposed to the subjunctives in Lk.12.58, would anyone similarly 
desire to maintain that Matthew's original text should also retain the 
the future tense following MHPOTE?  Or is Bezae simply to be dismissed 
as an unreliable witness?

On the other hand, if the future of Bezae indeed were to be argued as 
the presumptive original form of the text in the Matthean parallel, 
what about the other subjunctives which remain unchanged?  Why could 
not "primitive error" be argued in Mt.5.25 which transcends all Greek 
MSS and thus allow the future tense to be conjectured where it is 
deemed necessary?  After all, D in one instance _does_ support the
future tense.

Let me also note in the Matthean parallel the fluctuations regarding 
the final BLHQHSH: D* there reads BLHQHSEI, D2 reads BLHQHS, and L 
reads BLHQEIS.  It seems that these fluctuations offer a parallel to 
that occurring in regard to the final word in Lk.12.58, where the 
variants include BALEI, BALH, BALLH, and BALLEI.

After comparing the great number of verbal fluctuations in the Matthean 
and Lukan parallels, I believe my previous judgement is confirmed: the 
problem is NOT a grammatical issue, but is purely a transcriptional 
matter.  Once more, I see no reason to depart from the Byzantine/ 
Majority reading in those places, since itacistic or other 
transcriptional variation in a minority of witnesses commonly occurs 
throughout the text of the gospels.  The presumptive evidence _still_
remains fully in support of the majority reading in such cases.

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

Back