Sat Apr 6 06:31:27 1996
From majordom Sat Apr 6 06:31:27 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA03273; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 06:31:27 +0500
Message-Id: <9604061129.AA23580@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 96 13:29:44 +0100
From: schmiul@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: 6081
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
[Long message -- Part 2 of 2]
>From my point of view I may suggest how the misunderstanding
possibly arose. Therefor, I would like to give the main outline
of the arguments (to be shure, from my perspective) without quoting
too much (additions, corrections, etc. are required).
1) In my initial post I judged the subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) as
assimilations to KATASURH in order to fit the classical pattern.
2) Maurice agreed with respect to the classical pattern, but
disagreed with respect to the secondary nature of the readings. He,
on the other hand, provided a scenario mainly on grammatical
grounds in order to explain the secondary nature of the Alex.
future indicatives. Referring to Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.) he judged
the Alex. readings as "reflecting common vernacular rather than
normal literary style".
3) I in the main agree with the last sentence, though I dare to
call the Alex. readings "common vernacular", simply because I do
not no know exactly to what extend Bl.-Deb. (and Maurice) are using
the terms "common vernacular". But, what I do know is the fact that
these readings do _not_ reflect classical usage. And therefor, I
judged them with respect to the lectio difficilior argument as
secondary corrections in order to fit the classical pattern.
4) I suspect that the lectio difficilior argument caused Maurice to
rethink his initial claim, for now it is the "Byzantine
text...which does NOT reflect the classical perspective, but merely
the normal vernacular...". He achieved this twist by supposing that
"the 'litterary' as opposed to the 'vernacular' regards those
constructions such as are found in the Alexandrian MSS of Lk.12.58,
where a fine line is drawn between matters dependent on the will
and those not dependent on such". Again, this reasoning is
dependent on Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.). But nevertheless, what was
initially labled to be "common vernacular" (i.e. Alex. indicatives)
has now turned out to be a grammatically sophisticated construction
which "(depending on the edition of Bl.-Debr. used) _may_ reflect a
more 'classical' and literary approach".
On this outline of the discussion from my perspective I would like
to comment:
a) To my mind this last claim simply implies too much sophitication
on the Alexandrian side. With this example in mind the overall
agreed reading in Heb 3,12 makes from an Alexandrian mindset no
sense at all. Note in Lk 12,58, where after MHPOTE there are three
finite verbs, the Alexandrians drew "a fine line" between the first
and the two others, and in Heb 3,12, where there is only one finite verb, they
simply failed to realize the notion of will so plainly stated.
b) The whole situation becomes even more puzzling if I may take
into account what Maurice further wrote:
> I really do not know what may have motivated a small group of
> scribes in any given situation, so all here is speculation.
> I do suspect that the use of the indicative here by the
> Alexandrian MSS may reflect a recensional mindset aligned in some
> way with the classical restorations performed in Alexandria,
> which mindset may well focus on peculiar items like the
> indicative vs. subjunctive situation. There may also be a
> reflection as to the way Greek grammar was practiced in Egypt as
> opposed to elsewhere in the Roman world; also perhaps some
> influence from Coptic grammatical structure.
These are truely speculations, and, again, they portray the
Alexandrians with respect to the "indicative vs. subjunctive
situation" as partly hypersophisticated and partly foolish (c.f. Heb 3,12).
c) So I may leave speculation aside and return to the facts:
Final MH(POTE) is usually connected with (mainly aorist) subjunctive. This can
be called the normal, or "classical" pattern. On the other hand we have
undisputed evidence of some readings in the New Testament, which certainly do
_not_ reflect "classical" usage with respect to the grammatical features under
discussion. Maurice already mentioned two of them, Mk 14,2 (though note, some
later minuscules "correct" the fut.ind. to aor.subj.) and Heb 3,12. It is
precisely from this point of view that the argument from lectio difficilior
becomes valid. Because it is much more likely to assume that in the line of
transmission the more _unlitterary_ features are prone to "correction" than the
other way round. Note, this is only a rule of thumb, but to my mind it fits
perfectly well to the data involved in this discussion (cf. Mt 7,6; 13,15; Mk
14,2; Lk 12,58; John 12,40; Act 28,27; Heb 3,12). The evidence I reviewed up to
now points to only one conclusion: The later textual transmission (incl. Byz.)
gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with respect to the grammatical
features under discussion, than the other witnesses. A preliminary glance at the
INA clauses seems to point in the same direction.
d) To hopefully avoid some misconception I should add that I don't
want to even the data. I shurely will not blame the Byzantine
scribes for not having "corrected" all the indicatives, nor do I
wish to propose conjectural emendation where a subjunctive might be
"desperatly required". (This I stated with referrence to Heb 3,12
only because I commented on Maurice introducing the notion of will.
I think, the overall agreed future indicative in Heb 3,12 confirms
my suggestion that the notion of will is not at work when
speculating on reasons for scribes altering the text.)
I just wished to have as many data as possible from as many manuscripts as
possible to assess grammatical features like that in order to get a
comprehensive picture of shifts in a _historical_ perspective. The data which
are up to now under discussion are in favour of my position: The later textual
transmission (incl. Byz.) gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with
respect to the
grammatical features under discussion, than the other witnesses.
Note, I am open to change my mind, but not on the ground of
speculations like the above mentioned.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back