Sat Apr 6 06:54:47 1996

From majordom  Sat Apr  6 06:54:47 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA03328; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 06:54:47 +0500
Message-Id: <9604061125.AA15362@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 96 13:25:42 +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: 2417
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Due to some mail delivery subsystem complain I may divide my last message. I 
never thought that this would happen. Sorry, but I am a real beginner in the 
e-mail world.

(Long message -- Part 1 of 2)

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> (Ulrich Schmid wrote on 1 Apr 96)...

>> 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.

> This is twisting the Bl.-Debr. comment around: the "literary" 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. The Byzantine text is the one which does NOT
> reflect the classical perspective, but merely the normal
> vernacular which subsumes all elements of a clause under the
> leading subjunctive. Am I being misunderstood on this point?

I must confess that I am a little bit confused about this 
statement, because on Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> 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. 

I was only quoting.

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson further wrote:

> The classical use of the subjunctive occurs "if the
> anxiety is directed towards warding off something still dependent
> on the will" say Bl.-Debr., but this strictly applies only to the 
> initial KATASURH _if_ settlement is not made with the adversary. 
> All further clauses remain subjunctive under normal grammatical 
> patterns, since they remain dependent upon the initial condition
> not being fulfilled (MHPOTE).  This is classical usage and the
> normal grammatical pattern one encounters in the NT.  The case is
> clearly conditional, and requires the normal use of the 
> subjunctive throughout the clauses (like the mathematical
> distributive law).

Again, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Wihch side gives the classical 
usage, and which side the more common vernacular?

[continued in Part 2]

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

Back