Thu Apr 4 18:37:13 1996
From majordom Thu Apr 4 18:37:13 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA24996; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:37:13 +0500
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:34:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Luke 12,58
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 10409
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
[Long again -- Part 2 of 2]
On 1 April 96, Ulrich Schmid wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, you wrote:
[regarding 1 Cor 13.3]
>> 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.
That above quote was not mine, but a portion from Carlton, I believe.
The further comments below need to be taken with that in mind.
>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.
If my own comments are carefully read vis-a-vis that discussion, I did
not claim the Byzantine KAUQHSWMAI reading was "erroneous" in any
degree. Nor did I claim such was in fact a "future subjunctive,"
though I did note that a small handful of Byzantine scribes thought
there was a problem there and corrected it into a "normal" future
indicative (KAUQHSOMAI).
My point there was identical to my point in Heb.3.12 -- if scribes,
when faced with a peculiar or anomalous reading in their exemplars, did
NOT significantly alter the reading, when their supposed tendency was
to do so, such a reading has every presumptive right to be considered
original, even if today we cannot understand the reading from our own
lexical or grammatical ability to analyze.
The case of DEUTEROPRWTW in Lk.6:1 stands as another example of the
same situation -- a term which no one of us can interpret with
certainty, yet a term which gave only a small number of scribes any
difficulty. The lectio difficilior principle applies there as well as
in 1Cor.13.3 and Heb.3.12 (where there is no variation at all).
However, it is NOT legitimate to argue the lectio difficilior principle
in places where the variation is not widely supported and (especially,
as in the case of Lk.12.58) where phonetic/itacistic or transpositional
readings may well be argued as the nascent cause of such minority
readings.
Griesbach's original canon of the lectio difficilior principle included
the assumption "all things being equal," and, were the MSS nearly
evenly divided over such readings, I would be the first to argue the
more difficult principle as a deciding factor.
When the more difficult reading is supported by a proportion of 9:1 or
greater, I have little hesitation in agreeing with the scribes; if the
more difficult reading is found in a small handful of MSS, I similarly
have little problem in rejecting it, as do most textual critics most of
the time, save when such appears in their favorite MSS or texttype.
>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.
Again this reverses my contention: I am comfortable with a reading
supported by nearly all MSS and scribes which reflects "normal" Koine
grammatical patterns, and see no need to adopt a reading which
(depending on the edition of Bl.-Debr. used) _may_ reflect a more
"classical" and literary approach as opposed to the usual vernacular.
I also do not claim to know a priori which reading is "the original";
my decision in favor of the Byzantine Textform came about only by a
long chain of theoretical analysis and hypothesizing, since I
previously was a dedicated partisan of the eclectic position. The
pro-Byzantine position does not come about by fiat, but by means of
examining scribal habits and proclivities, analysis of the MS,
versional, and patristic data, and the reconstruction of a history of
textual transmission. Any pro-Byzantine partisan who takes a simpler
route than this has not practiced text-critical research.
Since I have been within the eclectic fold, I also find it relatively
simple to understand the arguments from both sides.
>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.
I agree that word order in versions and non-Greek fathers is less
relevant. Nevertheless, the editors of the Lk IGNTP seemed to consider
these readings indicative. As for 1071, certainly I put little stock
in readings of a single MS, especially a late one; but 1071 is often
linked with the latin witnesses, and, when in combination with them, at
least allows a presumption regarding the displacement of words as an
impetus for phonetically-based alteration in a minority of MSS.
Of course, as you well know, transcriptional considerations do not
require MS evidence in their support, as witness Metzger's convoluted
defense of the omission of DEUTEROPRWTW in Lk.6.1 -- all of the
hypothetical intermediate transcriptional steps urged by Metzger are
wholly without manuscript support. Q.E.D., my appeal to MS 1071 plus
the latin witnesses is even a more compelling argument.
>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.
True, all but one MS of the K1 group supports the Alex/Byz "majority"
reading. The majority (35) of the Kx group supports the majority
reading, while a minority (15) does not (whether von Soden's 15:35
really means 15 out of 50, or something else remains unclear, since his
proportions of, e.g., 3:2 hardly refer to a total of only 5 MSS
examined). The Kr group is the only Byzantine sub-group which reads the
subjunctive in toto. Chrysostom does likewise, of course.
I was assuming too much, and was talking in my own jargon when speaking
of "Alex" and "Byz". My intention was that "Byz" = my own edition of
the Byzantine/Majority text (so too Hodges/Farstad); and "Alex" = the
UBS4/N27 text. More precisely, I was only stating that the respective
Byzantine/Majority Text editions here _agree_ with the modern critical
editions (the TR reads IASWMAI).
I note also that the K1 group departs from the majority consensus in
reading EPISTREYOUSIN instead of EPISTREYWSIN; plus it has varied
support from other non-Byzantine witnesses. Why should you not here
argue as in Lk.12.58 that this indicative likewise should be considered
"original" as opposed to the subjunctive?
>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.
Luke and John of course are different writers and may have different
styles as regards the use of a subjunctive versus indicative following
MHPOTE. No requirement exists that either Luke or John reflect the
consensus LXX text (which you note is itself divided), so that is no
help. However, there is no real clue to Johannine "style" on this
matter in his gospel: the only other Johannine case of a -SOMAI or
-SWMAI ending occurs in Jn.8:55 (ESOMAI), and there it is indicative
(no instances of -SOMAI or -SWMAI occur in the Johannine Epistles).
In regard to my own edition in Jn.12:40 (also in Hodges/Farstad), we
will be the first to admit that this is a judgment call, and is highly
tentative. The Byzantine manuscript evidence is obviously divided, far
more so than in Mt.13.15. (At least I'm glad my edition made it to
Munster *;-)
So why did we choose IASOMAI in Matt. and IASWMAI in John? Merely
because the slight (89:69) balance of external evidence in John tips
toward IASWMAI within the Kx group. There is _no_ other reason, and I
could as easily argue that IASOMAI might be the more likely reading in
John, based upon ESOMAI in 8:55. However, since the author's "style"
cannot be judged from solitary examples, the slight imbalance in the Kx
evidence had to be the deciding factor. On that particular reading,
our text may well be in error, but the extant evidence does not allow
any certain or final decision (Jimmy, please take note *;-).
Note also that the division between -W- and -O- in Jn.12:40, Mt.13.15,
and even Ac.28.27 is clearly itacistic, and not likely grammatical. I
am not claiming that scribes in any of these places were making
grammatical changes any more than I would suggest the -O-/-W- variation
in the spelling of "Jason" in Ac.17:5,6,9 is due to any special scribal
concern with correct orthography (and the Hodges/Farstad text and my
own take opposite spellings in regard to Jason).
>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.
And I still maintain that the minority indicatives in the same passage
reflect either a transcriptional blunder or a deliberate stylistic
decision to imitate a more strictly classical style or at least the
Alexandrian equivalent of such.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back