Sat Apr 27 13:54:23 1996
From majordom Sat Apr 27 13:54:23 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA00655; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 13:54:23 +0500
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 13:51:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Luke 12,58 and beyond
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 7031
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On 24 Apr 96, Ulrich Schmid wrote:
>To my mind the discussion between Maurice and myself is caught up in a
>dead end situation.
I believe that Ulrich and I have concurred on this point in private
correspondence, and I will attempt not to burden the tc-list with
further discussion on the Lk.12.58 matter, let alone the posting of
relevant portions of our private communication thereupon.
>I may add that from a Byz.-priority viewpoint one _only_ has to find
>even a slight transcriptional _possibility_ to defend the original
>Byz. reading.
I have stated that I do think the cause of most non-Byzantine readings
is either accidental or unconscious alteration of the text. This
position naturally requires an examination of transcriptional
probability before anything else (which is precisely what Hort himself
had urged: knowledge of documents precedes final judgment upon
readings).
I would not concur with Ulrich that I "only" require a "slight
transcriptional probability" in order to defend the Byzantine text.
>From internal grounds, the likelihood of a transcriptional error is
still required to be likely and plausible within normal expectation
limits regarding the nature of scribal activity as well as the
distribution of a variant among texttypes, sub-types, versional, and
patristic data. The more widespread a variant reading may be among
these various sources, the less compelling an appeal to transcriptional
evidence will be. There remain a large number of readings in which I
do _not_ appeal to transcriptional evidence specifically because of the
variety of witnesses which support such a variant.
The Lk.12:58 case was a situation in which (according to Von Soden and
Tischendorf) less than 20 MSS read with the minority text, these
primarily being Alexandrian with some Western; little patristic
support, and apparently no versional support, and (especially to the
point) the possibility of itacistic or transpositional cause is obvious
in both the SE PARADWSEI/SE PARADW and BALEI/BALH variants. In this
particular case, my opinion was and still remains that appeal to
transcriptional probabilities is extremely high.
Contrast this with Metzger's Textual Commentary, where he repeatedly
argues transcriptional causes for the Byzantine/Majority reading in
situations where such are transcriptionally _unlikely_ due to the
quantity and variety of evidence (including versional and patristic)
supporting the Byzantine reading. In retrospect, I would suggest that
my own position on this matter remains more reasonable than that of
Metzger.
>The assumption of Byz. priority normally derives from
>other conclusions (for example from hypotheses on how the overall
>transmission history may have developped).
This of course is correct, insofar as the basic theory is involved.
However, in praxis, the examination of internal and external evidence
supporting readings within a given variant unit remains essential, and
no final decisions should be made until all the relevant factors have
been fully and fairly evaluated, even within the framework of a
Byzantine-priority hypothesis. There still is much truth in the basic
principles of internal evidence (such as the principles of the more
difficult reading and favoring the reading which appears to have given
rise to all the others) which truth does not compromise or contradict
the pro-Byzantine hypothesis in any serious manner.
>I may add the
>example of hINA clauses, where the Byz. text in general has a higher
>proportion of subjunctives than other witnesses. This observation is
>especilly compelling, when looking at the textual transmission of the
>Apocalypse (cf. 3,9; 6,4; 6,11; 8,3; 9,5b; 13,12; 14,13). In a text
>which is generally held to display the most "poor" Greek within the
>whole NT such a thorough revision of the Byz. text, converting most of
>hINA + ind. into hINA + subj. is especially significant. (May be
>Maurice as an expert in the field of the Apocalypse text can explain
>this striking feature, though, I suspect, he will do it from a
>different angle).
I of course will approach the Apocalypse text in a manner entirely
different from that whereby I approach the remainder of the NT,
primarily because the Apocalypse does not have a single Byzantine
texttype but two competing "Byzantine" texts (Andreas and Q, which only
= Byz when united, which thankfully occurs more often than not), and
also because the grammar of the Apocalypse is a "grammar of ungrammar."
It is this latter point which Ulrich addresses in regard to the use of
the subjunctives following INA.
Let me first note that merely because the Apocalypse often does not
follow grammatical "rules" that this does not mean one automatically
should prefer a non-grammatical reading, nor that it should be assumed
that scribes would continually be correcting the grammar into that
which is "proper". If the latter were the case, then the entire
Apocalypse would be highly grammatical in the later copies, which
anyone who examines Hoskier's collations will see is simply not the
case.
So if one should not automatically be considered a "rule" to prefer the
non-grammatical reading, one should also take into account the total
usage of a specific grammatical construction within that entire book.
In the case of INA and what follows it, there are far more _unquestioned_
cases of the "normal" subjunctive following INA than the seven cases
noted by Ulrich where he would prefer the "ungrammatical" non-"Byzantine"
reading. These "normal" grammatical forms occur in Rev.2:10, 21; 3:11,
18 [3x]; 6:2; 7:1; 8:6,12; 9:5a,15; 11:6, 12:4,6,14,15; 13:13,15,16;
16:12,15; 18:4; 19:8,15,18; 20:3; 21:15,23.
Based upon these data, it would seem that the normal usage of the
Apocalypse remains "grammatical" in regard to a subjunctive following
INA. There is thus no compelling reason to accept a minority reading
found in Alexandrian MSS as original merely because they are
ungrammatical. The fact that certain other readings in the
generally-accepted text of the Apocalypse are ungrammatical does not
compel one to hunt down all ungrammatical readings in the MSS of that
book and proclaim them as necessarily original on that basis.
I suspect that if one consults Hoskier, he will find that in virtually
every instance following HINA there will be some few MSS which happen
to read something besides the "normal" subjunctive, but this is hardly
compelling evidence. The real reason that the subjunctive was favored
by W-H and continued by the N27 editors still remains their view of
which MSS are "best" in the Apocalypse, and have little to do with a
true grammatical analysis of the entire conspectus of that book.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back