Subject: Re: Future subjunctive

From: [email-masked] (Carlton Winbery)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 21:46:56 +0400

Maurice Robinson wrote;
>On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>
>> I would like to comment on the textual problem at I
>> Cor 12:3.  I am persuaded that the original is KAUXHSWMAI supported by P46,
>> aleph, A B and others.  Some scribe (perhaps in a scriptorum) heard that
>> word and wrote KAUQHSWMAI (Psi, and a many others).  Another scribe saw
>> that reading and changed it to KAUQHSOMAI (C D F G L the whole latin
>> tradition and some others).  The aorist deponent subjunctive with hINA
>> makes good sense here, "in order that I might boast."
>
>(Let me insert a small but significant addendum to the data above: the
>reading KAUQHSWMAI of Psi "and many others" actually encompasses the
>entire Byzantine/Majority tradition, and this fact should not be minimized
>in the discussion which follows).

In addition to a number of Fathers beginning with Tertullian, but I do not
think that counting mss is the name of the game.

>The problem I see with the above approach is that KAUQHSOMAI/KAUQHSWMAI is
>clearly the "more difficult" reading.  Paul uses the concept of "boasting"
>almost to excess, particularly in the Corinthian correspondence. Nowhere
>else does he speak of giving one's body to be burnt, and even the
>particular locus of that reference in the immediate context is problematic.
>
>By applying the principle of favoring the reading most likely to give rise
>to the other(s), as well as acknowledging the reading which was most
>difficult (to the scribe), either KAUQHSWMAI or KAUQHSOMAI would be
>favored over the "easier" and "more familiar" Pauline verb KAUXHSWMAI.

There must be a distinction between "more difficult" and absurd.  The
origin of KAUQHSOMAI is difficult to account for unless a scribe made the
mistake that introduced the bogus form KAUQHSWMAI.  The latter is clearly
the middle of this equation.

>Even were dictation utilized in a scriptorium (which from my own
>examination of variants and their causes I consider to be the extremely
>rare case when speaking of NT Greek MSS), an error of hearing between the
>phonemes Chi and Theta would not be all that likely, since one is a
>gutteral and the other a labial.  Yet even if phonetic confusion occurred,
>the tendency of a scribe then would be to favor what he in his own mind
>and hearing THOUGHT was a more common reading over one which would be less
>common, and especially a concept of giving one's body "to be burned," which
>would be unique to Paul.

We have ample examples of confusion of sounds more desparate than this.
However, the suggestion of an error of hearing was only a suggestion.
Others have suggested that a scribe would have changed KAUXHSWMAI to
KAUQHSWMAI because of other difficulties (Metzger, p. 564).

>More problematic than either of these matters is the supposition that a
>single scribe creating a more difficult reading by an error or hearing
>would somehow produce a MS copy which then would become the mother of
>virtually all subsequent MSS.  This hypothesis assumes that no
>contemporary or later scribe would ever notice the difference, let alone
>simply correct such an error by cross-comparison with another pre-existing
>exemplar.

You speak as though every scribe or even most scribes knew many other mss.
Such was not the case. The Alexandrian tradition was hidden from most of
the scribes for a very long time.

>A major problem with modern eclecticism (whether reasoned or rigorous) is
>its failure to ignore the problems of the historical transmission of the
>text throughout history; this is one such case where attention to the
>historical possibilities of manuscript transmission weighs heavily in
>determining a conclusion.
>
>That an error producing a "more difficult" reading could so easily corrupt
>the mass of the MS tradition bodes ill for the certain recovery of the
>original text by any currently-recognized and responsible principles of NT
>textual criticism.

I don't quite understand this assertion.  You seem to be saying that the
flow of mss traditions was an unbroken stream.  Such was not the case.
There were major interruptions in the transmission of the text of the NT,
the fact that Latin eclipsed much of the tradition in the west, the north
African and middle Eastern traditions went underground because of the
Muslim takeover there, the Byzantine traditions eventually flooded into
Europe in the Crusades and with the fall of Constantinople.  Majority text
people speak as though none of these happened.

>It is also significant that the Western tradition (D F G, as well as the
>Old Latin, known to be 2nd century in origin) would have virtually
>unanimously accepted such an "difficult" erroneous reading and perpetuated
>it (though changing the apparent subjunctive to an indicative -- another
>case of moving toward an "easier" reading, but this time grammatically).
>Yet under such a hypothesis, there still remained MSS of that era (P46)
>and even two or more centuries later (Aleph A B) which still maintained
>the supposed "original" reading whereby the "difficult reading" error
>could easily have been corrected.

Apparently they did and for an even longer period if the bonehead reading
were original.

>Allowing the Byzantine "more difficult" reading of KAUQHSWMAI to be
>original on the other hand, everything explains itself well.  The tendency
>of some scribes to gravitate to a more usual Pauline expression or
>"boasting" may have played some part, but also the grammatical issue of
>the peculiar subjunctive (?) form might on the one hand cause some scribes
>to alter -SWMAI to -SOMAI, leaving the -Q- intact and other scribes to
>seize the opportunity of presuming an error in their exemplar, and to
>correct the text from a -Q- to a -X-, with a grammatically "normal"
>KAUXHSWMAI (Middle Deponent Subjunctive) in its place -- again a
>temptation to move to the "easier" reading, both in content and in
>grammar.  From this standpoint, it then is no surprise to find a SMALL
>minority of scribes reading either KAUXHSWMAI or KAUQHSOMAI as opposed to
>the 98%+ Byzantine reading of KAUQHSWMAI, which is grammatically and
>contextually "more difficult", and thus more liable to give rise to the
>remaining readings.

I find it very difficult to think that scribes would have corrected
KAUQHSWMAI to KAUXHSWMAI instead of KAUQHSOMAI.
>
>The problem comes down to this: WHY -- on what reasonable grounds --
>should the vast majority of all MSS ever have perpetuated a reading which
>they knew was grammatically questionable and contextually problematic,
>assuming that a perfectly good alternative existed in variant readings
>known and perpetuated in either the Latin or Alexandrian traditions.

This assumes that the Byzantine scribes knew those mss, which simply was
not the case.  Tischendorf found aleph in 1854.  Vaticanus was descovered
in the Vatican in the 17th century.  P46 was discovered in this century.
Its easy to imagine different scenarios, but the reality is that a reading
in the vast majority of the ms tradition can be wrong.

>It hardly seems likely that any alteration to the text of a MS which would
>produce a grammatically questionable and "more difficult" reading would
>ever be perpetuated in the vast majority of MSS.  If this indeed be the
>case, the reading in question seems far more likely to be a reflection
>of the autograph text than any alteration to such.

For the Byzantine scribes who preferred KAUQHSOMAI, KAUXHSWMAI would have
been a more "difficult" alternative.  If a person gave up one's body, how
could they "glory" in it.

The reading KAUQHSWMAI/KAUQHSOMAI would have been very unlikely in the time
of Paul.  (Daniel is most likely not the catelist here.)  After Nero used
Christians to light his games and martyrdom came to be practiced, the
alteration of the text to include burning is much more likely.  It is very
difficult to reject the reading of P46, aleph, A, B, the "queen" of the
cursives, the Coptic tradition, Clement Origen and Jerome on such shaky
ground as you present.

Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:33:34 -0500 (EST)

> think that counting mss is the name of the game.

Nor do I per se; however, when speaking of scribal proclivities and 
tendencies, the question of whether an error will become so widespread as 
to encompass virtually the entire manuscript tradition must be taken 
seriously.

> the middle of this equation.

But is "to be burnt" absurd?  Even the 1881 Revised Version and the 1901
American Standard Version continued to read with the Byzantine text, and
this reading is still followed by the RSV and the NIV, among many other
translations -- and it certainly cannot be argued that any of these
translations felt compelled to preserve the KJV/TR reading.  Obviously
modern translators have text-critical opinions which differ radically from
the modern eclectic school as regards their view as to what might be 
absurd *:-).   Actually, the meaning of "give my body that I might boast" 
is also a crux interpretum which is not readily resolved either.

But even allowing that a scribe might accidentally create a term which
would be either "difficult" or "absurd" -- why then would few (if any)
subsequent scribes ever attempt to correct such a reading?   Of course, 
if the reading were actually that of the autograph, scribes would tend to 
preserve it regardless of perceived absurdity or error (e.g. "Jeremiah" 
in Mt.27:9).

> >gutteral and the other a labial.  Yet even if phonetic confusion occurred,

I need to correct myself here -- Chi is a gutteral, but Theta is a 
dental.  Slip of the mind while the fingers typed away.

> We have ample examples of confusion of sounds more desparate than this.

Agreed.  However, there are astoundingly few cases which can be alleged 
where such confusion (producing an "absurdity") would be perpetuated in 
more than a dozen or so MSS -- not the bulk of the entire MS tradition.
This is why O'Callaghan's claims on the 7Q4 papyrus being Markan can be 
dismissed -- he not only has to posit an error of omission but also a 
change from a delta to a theta producing a nonsense spelling, neither of 
which has any other textual support.  

> KAUQHSWMAI because of other difficulties (Metzger, p. 564).

The error of hearing could occur even in manual copying, since scribes 
would read aloud as they copied, and confusion could occur at any one of 
four steps in a manual copying process (Metzger, Text of the NT).  The 
Metzger Textual Commentary is of course trying to defend the reading the 
editors favored, but I still think they are clutching at some very 
thin straws on this one.

> the scribes for a very long time.

I certainly would agree on that latter point, since I would consider the 
entire Alexandrian tradition primarily to reflect a "local text" of Egypt 
which did not have significant impact in the primary Greek-speaking 
portion of the Empire, from Southern Italy through Northern Palestine.  
But monasteries and scriptoriums did exist scattered in all these 
regions, and scribes did have access to more MS copies than the one 
exemplar they were working with, as evidenced frequently by contemporary 
corrections from MSS of differing families and texttypes which appear in 
our present copies.  I would not suggest that scribes would have much 
knowledge of MS traditions beyond their own local area or even their own 
monastery or church situation, but I would maintain that additional 
copies for comparison and cross-correction were generally available, 
even if not in quantity.

> the fact that Latin eclipsed much of the tradition in the west, the north

Since the Greek tradition appears never to have entered the West, I would 
not suggest any "eclipse"; rather I would suggest as most handbooks that 
the Latin had its origins in a European and African form, which derived 
most probably from central Italy and Rome on the one hand and Carthage on 
the other hand.  The origin of the Latin tradition would have been Greek 
MSS, but of a limited variety reflecting the "popular" Western variety of 
text during the early "uncontrolled popular text" period before AD 200.

The stream of transmission certainly has its byways and rivulets, but 
basically there remains a constant flow, and it would exist in the 
primary Greek-speaking portion of the Empire more than in the fringe 
areas where local texts would abound.

> Muslim takeover there

Although the Muslim conquest did occur, there is little evidence that the 
stream of transmission was in any serious way affected.  The Coptic 
church and its MSS (Alexandrian text) have continued in an unbroken chain 
to the present day, even under the harshest Islamic restrictions.  The 
Coptic church did not have to go "underground" -- it is true that 
non-Muslims were penalized with heavier taxes to force conversion, but 
those who held out were permitted freedom of worship in Egypt during the 
centuries in question.

> the Byzantine traditions eventually flooded into

Byzantine Greek MSS were brought into the West after the sack of
Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.  However, the Western Churches
and monastaries had little use for the MSS written in a Greek they could
not read.  That the Textus Receptus happened to be created initially by
Erasmus from the (primarily) Byzantine MSS he was able to obtain in
Western monasteries in and around Basel does not imply that the Byzantine
Textform in any way ever influenced the Latin Church tradition in Western
Europe.  Even the Complutensian Polyglot continually had to place &&&&&&
in its Latin text where the basically Byzantine Greek text of that edition
had a longer reading.  But there was no cross-influence from the Byzantine
Textform which affected Western Europe until long AFTER the Reformation 
took hold.

The continued use and perpetuation of the Byzantine text remained centered
in Greece and Asia Minor throughout the entire period of Greek MS
transmission.  Those favoring a Byzantine-priority hypothesis (which is
not precisely the same as a majority text position) clearly would
recognize the precise facts of history along with their impact, exactly as
they occurred. 

> Apparently they did and for an even longer period if the bonehead reading

Let me once more suggest that the term "absurd" or even "bonehead"  is
really unfair to the translators of the ERV/ASV/RSV/NIV etc., as well as
being clearly prejudicial.  An assessment such as "more difficult" 
definitely would be preferable. *:-)  The question remains, however, in 
light of my above paragraph, that if the difficult reading were in fact 
so problematic, why is it that so few scribes after the 4th century ever 
attempted to correct it, when such correction of difficult readings is 
presumed to be a genuine scribal characteristic -- especially of 
Byzantine-era scribes?

> KAUQHSWMAI to KAUXHSWMAI instead of KAUQHSOMAI.

I personally would agree.  And in fact (assuming KAUQHSWMAI to be 
original) more scribes DID make the alteration from the apparent 
problematic future (?) subjunctive into KAQHSOMAI than made the 
correction to the "easier" reading of KAUXHSWMAI.  I suspect the handful 
of witnesses that went for the -X- in place of the -Q- did so quite 
deliberately and in order to smooth a perceived difficulty by choosing a 
more "Pauline" word rather than perpetuate a reading which would still 
remain difficult of interpretation, even were the -W- altered to -O-.

> in the vast majority of the ms tradition can be wrong.

I certainly would not suggest that any Byzantine scribe knew the readings 
of the Alexandrian MSS.  Some may have, on a small scale, but most were 
familiar with and content to deal with the text which had continually 
been preserved in their locality -- a text which, even though with small 
differences in subgroupings, nevertheless remained basically constant 
during the entire period of MS transmission from the 4th century through 
the 16th.  The problem reverts back to transmissional history, and, in 
regard to the present reading, exactly HOW a "more difficult" reading, 
supposedly created in error by a single scribe (maybe even by a small 
number of scribes on different occasions) could not only remain 
uncorrected by subsequent scribes, but also grow and multiply to 
overwhelm the entire MS tradition, when a far easier and apparently more 
"logical" Pauline term was theoretically the autograph.  I simply fail to 
see the logic in such a scenario.

> could they "glory" in it.

And equally, if it had been "given up", how could it be burnt?  I fail to 
see any logical connection here, nor do I see in PARADW TO SWMA MOU a 
clear meaning to the scribe viewing it from either reading.

> of Paul.  

And of course, since it would be a hapax usage of the verb in this 
context within Paul.  But likewise, KAUXHSWMAI in conjunction with PARADW 
and SWMA also would be a hapax usage in Paul, so this approach seems to 
me to lead nowhere.

> (Daniel is most likely not the catelist here.)  

Agreed -- I only pointed out the incongruity of the N27 edition putting 
the cross-reference to Daniel in their margin, when that cross-reference 
could only point to the Byzantine reading and not the Alexandrian.

> After Nero used
> alteration of the text to include burning is much more likely.  

But this would take us right back to the first century and even the time 
of Paul (depending on a second Roman imprisonment and its chronology), so 
the point of the Byzantine reading may have a definite reference (but I 
would not argue it or press it).

> It is very

Since I would not consider my line of argument to be "shaky" in this 
regard, I do not think there is as much serious weakness with the 
Byzantine reading in this instance as there is with the Alexandrian.

As for the testimony cited, I am not surprised that MSS with a likely 
Egyptian connection (P46 Aleph, A, B) would tend to agree with the Egyptian 
version (Coptic) which shares the Alexandrian (local) texttype.  MS 33 -- 
whatever its origin -- maintains those connections, probably through its 
uncial exemplar.  Clement of Alexandria and Origen who spent time in 
Egypt also do not move this reading beyond a limited local text status.  
Jerome's influence is through scholarly MSS provided him in Palestine, 
either by way of Eusebius, coming from Origen or directly from the 
scholars in Alexandria.  So basically I still see the Alexandrian reading 
as maintaining the localized Egyptian connection, and thus far easier to 
dismiss than the circumstance of the remainder of the MS tradition.

=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   <[email-masked]>
=========================================================================