Mon Apr 1 04:17:06 1996
From majordom Mon Apr 1 04:17:06 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA26687; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:17:06 +0500
Message-Id: <9604010814.AA115191@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 10:13:11 +0100
From: willrut@uni-muenster.de
Subject: Luke 12,58
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Content-Length: 6605
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
First, I have to apologize my late dealing with this subject again. It's due to
some days of vacancies.
On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> 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.
First of all, I would like to comment on Blass-Debrunner sec. 370. Since I do
not know exactly which edition/translation of this tool of reference you are
referring to, Maurice, I may add that the formulation "MH...wird in der klass.
Sprache mit dem Konj. verbunden, wenn die Besorgnis abwehrend auf etwas noch vom
Willen Abhaengiges, mit dem Indik. aller Tempora, wenn sie auf etwas schon
Geschehenes oder überhaupt vom Willen Unabhaengiges gerichtet ist" (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) is replaced by "...wird in der klass. Sprache mit dem
Konj. verbunden, wenn die Besorgnis auf etwas Zukuenftiges, mit dem Indik. aller
Tempora, wenn sie auf etwas schon Geschehenes gerichtet ist" (Ergaenzungsheft zu
Blass-Debrunner, 12th edition, Goettingen 1970).
Note, the reference to "the act of the will" is completaly abandonned,
supposedly due to its inappropriatness.
But, since you may rely on the formulation of the older edition, for judging it
appropriate, I would like to add some further comments on the scenario you
provided.
1) If, "within the context of Lk. 12:58, the act of will appears to be lacking
in the final clauses", then the indicative tense and _not_ the Byzantine
subjunctive ought to be judged as reflecting "the literary, if not the classical
perspective".
2) If the Alexandrian scribes are so conscious with regard to the act of the
will in Lk 12,58, what about the first verb KATASURH? And what about the
indicative in Heb 3,12 where the subjunctive is so desperately required?
3) Given the fact that in Lk 12,58 the "Byzantine reading reflects the literary,
if not the classical perspective", what about the argument from lectio
difficilior? I may refer to your case on 1.Cor 13,3, the so-called "future
subjunctive" of the Byzantine tradition.
On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, you wrote:
> The bigger problem is that it not only is 'not good Greek' but it > blatantly
appears to be erroneus by suggesting a non-existent
> future subjunctive. I fail to see how scribes in the main would
> simply allow such an anomalous reading to stand.
Here in 1.Cor 13,3 you pushed the argument from lectio difficilior so far that
it results in suggesting an erroneus reading in the autograph in order to defend
the authenticity of the Byzantine text. In Lk 12,58 on the other hand, you feel
comfortable with a Byzantine reading that "reflects the literary, if not the
classical perspective". For someone who does not a priori know which reading is
"the original" it is not easy to follow your arguments.
4) You wrote:
> 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.
I simply fail to see how one single minusule (1071, 12th century) can be
referred to as "certain MSS". Note, versions and (Latin) fathers are usually no
secure witnesses to alterations in word order of that limited effect.
5) You wrote (quoting Robertson):
> "Both subj. and fut.ind. likewise occur in Mt 13:15 MH POTE > IDWSIN -- KAI
IASOMAI" [Byz and Alex here agree].
I'm afraid that your assertion in brackets is somehow ambiguous. Only the vast
majority of von Sodens K 1 agrees here with Alex. K x is divided, 15 manuscripts
out of 50, K r in total, and Chrysostomos give the subj. IASWMAI. Even more
interesting is the fact that Mt 13,15 is a quotation from Is 6,10 (the LXX MSS
are divided too), and most interesting is the fact that this quotation is also
given in John 12,40 where 89 manuscripts out of 158 of von Sodens K x and K r in
total, and also some K 1 manuscripts give the subj. IASWMAI (For the sake of
completeness should be added that the subj. IASWMAI in Acts 28,27 is supported
by von Sodens K c and K r). When checking your own edition I feel deeply in need
of some explanation, for in Mt 13,15 and in Acts 28,27 you give ind. IASOMAI,
but in John 12,40 you give subj. IASWMAI.
6) To sum up from my viewpoint: I would strongly suggest that in Lk 12,58 the
subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) are assimilations in tense and mood to the first
KATASURH. Together they "reflect the literary, if not the classical
perspective", and therefor in this peculiar instance the Byzantine text has to
be judged as secondary.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back