Subject: Re: Future subjunctive

From: [email-masked] (Carlton Winbery)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 18:17:48 -0600

Mark O'Brien wrote;
>I was recently reading some comments regarding the existence of the future
>subjunctive in one of the readings for 1Co 13:12, and I was thinking of doing a
>little digging in this area.  Can anybody supply me some brief background info
>on the history of the future subjunctive in Greek?  Thanks for your input.  (I
>apologize if this has been dealt with in previous discussion.)
>
Mark later corrected the reference to I Cor. 13:3.  Carl Conrad and Ed
Hobbs have both given good correctives to the idea of the existence of a
future subjunctive.  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."

Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion/Philosophy
LA College,
Pineville,La
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 21:44:35 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote: 

> I would like to comment on the textual problem at I

(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). 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.  

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. 

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.

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.

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.

As an aside, I find it highly amusing that in the cross references to the
Nestle 27 text at 1Cor.13:3, they note Daniel 3:19ff, which does NOT
reflect their chosen text at all, but the majority KAUQHSWMAI reading *:-)

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 02:15:36 -0500 (EST)

> favored over the "easier" and "more familiar" Pauline verb KAUXHSWMAI. 

KAUXHSWMAI may have been the more difficult reading when Paul wrote, but 
with the frenzy toward martyrdom that swept over the church from the late 
(?) second through the early fourth centuries, KAUQHSOMAI would not have 
been considered difficult at all to copyists--it might even have been 
favored on theological grounds.  As for the reading KAUQHSWMAI, I have my 
doubts that many scribes found it all that difficult.  True, it's not 
"good" Greek, but so many mss, particularly later ones, exhibit similar 
shifts in spelling, that the fact that it appears in the majority of mss 
does not seem very remarkable.

> simply correct such an error by cross-comparison with another pre-existing

But in fact, this is exactly what happens in numerous instances in the ms 
tradition: a change in one ms, which happens to be one that is copied 
frequently, is perpetuated throughout the tradition, while the original 
reading in other, less copied, mss is reduced to a minority.  Ms traditions 
subjected to frequent copying leave themselves open to more scribal 
changes, intentional or unintentional, than less frequently copied 
traditions.

> determining a conclusion. 

I assume Maurice means that eclectics fail to "take into account" the 
problems of the history of the text :-).  I agree, this is a serious 
problem, and one that must be addressed if better critical editions are 
to be created.

> original text by any currently-recognized and responsible principles of NT

Perhaps so, but it seems nevertheless to be the case, both here and in 
numerous other instances.  Westcott and Hort identified more than 70 
passages in which they believed "primitive corruption" occurred and 
obliterated the original reading from the ms tradition.  What NT text 
critics should learn from this situation is that they are not nearly as 
close to the "original text" as some would claim.
 
> known and perpetuated in either the Latin or Alexandrian traditions.

In light of the previous discussion, I would answer as follows.  (1) The 
scribes in the Byzantine tradition (for the most part) probably did _not_ 
know that the reading KAUQHSWMAI was grammatically questionable; (2) the 
glorification of martyrdom belies the claim that the majority reading was 
contextually problematic; (3) the scribes did not know that alternate 
readings existed, and if they had know, they would have naturally assumed 
that their own tradition was correct.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: John Wevers <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:17:17 -0500 (EST)

Possibly a Septuagint scholar might join the discussion.
The last thirty years of my scholarly career has been devoted
largely to dealing with mss readings. Copyists simply did not
distinguish between the homonymic -omai and wmai. In other
words aorist subjunctives could be spelled with -o- or with -w-
almost indiscriminately. I would strongly suggest that one 
abandon the notion of a future subjunctive. Grammatically
that makes no sense, and the reading that has been
identified as a future subjunctive is nothing of the kind,
but is simply a misspelled indicative. As far as I know future
subjunctives are not attested as anything but the result of
homonymic spelling. JWW
-- 

John Wevers
Near Eastern Studies
University of Toronto
INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 20:37:10 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

(Well -- you wanted to spark some discussion in the TC listserver....) *:-)

> KAUXHSWMAI may have been the more difficult reading when Paul wrote, but 

I would not think a more "normal" Pauline word would have been "more 
difficult" in Paul's own day.

> favored on theological grounds.  

Knowing the great tendency to revere martyrs in the early centuries, 
there is a point here.  But I would see this a a clear reason to continue 
to preserve among the majority of witnesses the "more difficult" Pauline 
reading of KAUQHSWMAI.  If there were tendency toward a wholesale 
alteration from "boasting" to "burning", I would suspect certain Fathers 
would have railed against deliberate alteration of the text merely to 
support martyrdom by fire.  

Which raises the more interesting question, since more saints appear to
have been crucified, shot through with arrows, flayed alive, and beheaded
than burnt, would not the tendency be more for the martyrially-inclined to
favor a more "universal" reading of "give my body that I may boast"? 

> As for the reading KAUQHSWMAI, I have my 
> doubts that many scribes found it all that difficult.  

The majority certainly did not.  But the (relatively easy to explain)
minority who did choose to alter it obviously found it "difficult". It 
would be much harder to explain why a perfectly acceptable original 
reading of "boast" would be altered by nearly all scribes due to a 
perceived glorification of martyrdom.

> True, it's not 

The bigger problem is that it not only is "not good Greek" but it blatantly
appears erroneous 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, and why the vast majority -- even if they did create the
reading "burnt" -- would not have at least followed suit with C D F G L et
al. and at least read something which was eminently grammatical.  This is 
a far greater matter than the mere issue of martyrdom. 

> reading in other, less copied, mss is reduced to a minority.  

Only from the eclectic perspective *:-) *:-)  The Byzantine-priority view 
would maintain that a reading which became altered would, in the normal 
course of events be corrected within one or two copying generations, and 
only in the case of "local text" traditions would such readings be 
perpetuated over several centuries -- and even then never gaining the 
ascendancy.   

The question of the frequency of copying MSS is moot.  Some MSS might
never be copied, others extremely frequently.  In the absence of proof
regarding which MSS were or were not copied at frequent rates,
statistically the evidence points to the fact that the Byzantine MSS and
they alone were those most frequently copied outside of local text
situations.  WHY they were frequently copied is another matter altogether,
but I would venture that they were most frequently copied because they
reflected the text in general (not localized) use. 

> Ms traditions 

Certainly.  By number there are probably 10 times more variant readings in
the aggregate among the numerous Byzantine MSS than among the Alexandrian,
Caesarean or Western MSS.  But this is only to be expected, since the 
Byzantine MSS outnumber the others by 100:1 or greater.

However, proportionally -- on a per-MS basis -- the Byzantine MSS are FAR
less liable to variation than those of the minority texttypes (this was a
primary conclusion of my dissertation on "Scribal Habits among MSS of the
Apocalypse", Southwestern Seminary, Ft.Worth, 1982). 

> problem, and one that must be addressed if better critical editions are 

This has been a recurring lament of H.H.Oliver and Kenneth W. Clark as 
well as Eldon J. Epp.  Clark basically suggested that all the efforts of 
eclectic methodology -- based as they are without a history of textual 
transmission -- are doomed to failure, and that some new approach and new 
angle must be essayed if any "progress" is to be made in the quest of the 
original text.  As one who learned his textual criticism first under 
Clark, I must say that I appreciated his openness and encouragement to 
proceed in the direction I have taken.

> obliterated the original reading from the ms tradition.  

Unfortunately, what W-H advocated in such situations was basically
conjectural emendation, which their own principles would not permit. 
Modern eclecticism, whether reasoned or rigorous, similarly eschews
conjecture (save for Aland's notorious Acts 16:12 case in the GNT3, now --
at long last! -- finally "proven" by a few unnamed mss of the Vulgate). 
Appeal to "primitive error" -- so far as I know -- has not been in vogue 
since W-H; and such appeal establishes nothing in regard to the present case.

I would be desirous in learning of the "numerous other instances" in 
which a patently "more difficult" reading which is NOT considered to be 
the original autograph text has been perpetuated in the mass of the MS 
and versional traditions.  The examples should be instructive.

> What NT text 

As regards modern eclecticism, I would heartily agree *:-) This also is
Eldon J. Epp's position, as is well known:  "We know too much to believe
the old; we do not know enough to create the new."  The Byzantine-priority
advocates are not suffering under the same stigma, however. 
 
> know that the reading KAUQHSWMAI was grammatically questionable; 

? - I am nonplussed.  A future subjunctive, where no case of such appears
to exist elsewhere?  And this among Greek-speaking scribes for the most
part? I am willing to excuse those primarily Latin-speaking scribes who
knew not what they did, whether preparing bilingual MSS or even Greek MSS. 
But in those cases, the Greek suffers far worse grammatical damage by the
pen than is found in the typical Byzantine MS.  The fact that some scribes
definitely altered the problematic reading into the more appropriate
-SOMAI gives indication that the grammatical problem surrounding this
reading must have been noted (unless one would argue that the -W-/-O-
interchange is purely phonetic, which I doubt in the present case).  As 
Cassiodorus might have said, "our scribes may be ignorant, but 
grammatically they ain't dumb." *:-)

>2) the 
> contextually problematic; 

And I differ as explained in detail above.....

> (3) the scribes did not know that alternate 

But cross-corrections in MSS shows clearly that scribes DID know 
alternate readings existed.  They DID have other exemplars with which to 
compare, and if this reading in fact stemmed from an out-and-out error, 
why would it not have been swiftly corrected within a copying generation 
or two and basically withdrawn from circulation?  

Certainly scribes would assume that their own tradition was correct -- 
but their "tradition" stemmed from the MSS they were copying and the 
liturgical use of those texts in the church.  And these all conspired to 
maintain only the text which was "traditional" for the Byzantine 
transmission-history.  Had an original "boasting" variant been part of 
the normal liturgy, there would be no question which direction the 
majority of MSS would have been likely to take.  Had the various 
exemplars at hand at any stage of transmission been numerically in favor 
of "boast", there is little likelihood that a "later" upstart reading 
which was not only "more difficult" but also "grammatically untenable" 
would ever have gained the ascendancy.  

So, to me the issue remains fairly simple, but not simplistic.....

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 21:03:08 -0500 (EST)

> subjunctives are not attested as anything but the result of

While agreeing that the identification of the -SWMAI form should not be 
taken as a unique (and unprecedented) future subjunctive, and also that 
there was often among MSS a homonymic interchange between W and O, on 
text-critical grounds I would still maintain that a grammatically 
problematic or "erroneous" reading would not be long perpetuated in any 
given texttype tradition were it not stemming from the autograph.

On the -W- or -O- matter, we have a similar texttype-specific variant at 
Rom.5:1 (ECWMEN/ECOMEN), but the delineation lines occur primarily due to 
texttype, and not merely due to homonymic confusion.  I would suggest 
that in any case, the scribes for the most part knew full well what they 
were doing in allowing the -SWMAI to remain in the text, even if they 
could not all comprehend it grammatically.

The real issue on 1Cor13:3, however, is not the -SWMAI/-SOMAI interchange 
(where no one seems to be claiming the "more correct" -SOMAI is to be 
considered original), but with the greater issue of "burning" vs. 
"boasting" (the -Q- vs the -X-).