Subject: Re: Future subjunctive

From: [email-masked] (Carlton Winbery)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 17:42:03 +0400

James R. Adair responded to  Maurice Robinson;
>> I maintain that such
>> a variant-by-variant defense CAN be performed successfully, in which case
>> internal evidence alone argues for Byzantine-priority as well as the the
>> subsequent and secondary nature of the Alexandrian, Western, and other
>> texttypes.  As Colwell did say from within an eclectic perspective, "Hort
>> has put genealogical blinders on our eyes."
>
>In light of my earlier comments, I believe that what you suggest is exactly
>what must be done: each reading must be evaluated one by one, with more
>emphasis placed on internal than on external evidence.  Individual
>readings in one witness or tradition will need to be compared to other
>readings in that witness/tradition to see if any patterns emerge that
>would indicate a theological or transcriptional Tendenz.  However, no
>appeal should be made to the "superiority" of one family of mss over
>another, since this appeal just begs the text-critical question.
>
I would agree with this statement.  I would add that on internal grounds
the explanation of the readings at I Cor. 13:3 is KAUXHSWMAI then
KAUQHSWMAI then KAUQHSOMAI.  When you consider intrinsic evidence this is
most likely.  When you consider transcriptional probilities this is more
logical.  The argument that the Byzantine scribes would not have allowed
the future subjunctive to stand had they known other mss that had either of
the other readings begs the question.  What scribes did was copy mss.  To
assume that they would not have let stand this reading for so long (if a
reasonable argument) speaks also against such a reading being original.  I
think the effort to argue for the originality of the future subjunctive is
made primarily on the assumption that the Byzantine text more closely
represents the original text.

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 00:21:57 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 3 Feb 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote:

> I would add that on internal grounds
> logical.  

I continue to differ, as previously, but have no need to rehash my 
reasons further on those points.

> The argument that the Byzantine scribes would not have allowed
> the other readings begs the question.  

Again, I think not.  The issue is what scribes did.  You are correct in 
that "What scribes did was copy mss."  Most of them could care less about 
what the rest of the MSS in the world read; they were interested only in 
their own copy, and in making it conform as closely as possible to their 
exemplars.  That is why the copies scribes made were regularly read by an 
outside proofreader (diorthwths), as well as by the scribe himself/herself.

The matter comes to this: if scribe A made an error and changed -X- to 
-Q-, producing a questionable reading of "burnt", as well as a 
grammatically questionable "future subjunctive" (or whatever you wish to 
call it), this is something that a corrector would spot, even without 
comparing it with an exemplar.  The appearance of the "future subjunctive" 
alone would cause the corrector to instantly reach for the exemplar to 
see if it stood so there.  And if it did, there likely would be a check 
against another exemplar.  Had the reading been perfectly sensible, like 
KAUXHSWMAI, not an eyebrow would have been raised.

But look at it from the wider perspective.  This was but one scribe in 
one situation, supposedly creating the erroneous reading.  Now this event 
has to be repeated identically in numerous scattered monasteries and 
churches, with little or no correction ever being made back to the easier 
and more sensible original KAUXHSWMAI (contrary to the supposed tendency 
of most scribes), and as a final result this erroneous reading ends up 
permeating the entire Byzantine tradition, comprising 95%+ of all the MSS!

This whole scenario boggles the imagination and probably would be
dismissed by most historians as pure fiction.  Add to this the very early
dissemination of the "erroneous" Byzantine reading in the entire Old Latin
tradition, as well as in Latin fathers, and the fiction becomes almost a
fable (the Greek Ante-Nicene fathers are basically silent on this passage;
Chrysostom of course quotes the Byzantine reading). 

> To assume that they would not have let stand this reading for so long (if a

The appeal is made from the basis of a transmissional history, with 
analysis of alternative historical scenarios, such as examined above with 
regard to the hypothesis that KAUXHSWMAI might be original.  My own decision
to advocate Byzantine-priority follows a proper methodology, and 
certainly is not based upon mere a priori assumption that the Byzantine 
Textform is more likely original.  That might be a conclusion drawn from 
the bulk of the evidence, coupled with a historical reconstruction of 
transmission, but it is not by any means axiomatic.

Would modern eclectics (such as yourself) argue so vociferously for what 
plainly seems to be an "easier" reading here had KAUXHSWMAI in fact been 
the Byzantine and KAUQHSWMAI the Alexandrian readings?  I think not, 
since Metzger flip-flops continuously on this score in his Textual 
Commentary.  There is just as much "primary assumption" made by the 
eclectics in favor of Alexandrian witness (Aleph/B) and early papyri 
(when convenient) as you allege toward the Byzantine-priority position.

If the modern eclectics would at least prepare a reasonable model for
historical transmission which would explain the rise of all the texttypes
from the original text they hypothesize in their critical editions, and
also explain the rise and utter dominance of the traditional Byzantine
Textform within a solid historical framework, a great deal of good would
be accomplished.  The problem is that they cannot so do, given the basic
presuppositions of eclectic methodology. So they remain in a text-critical
quagmire, uncertain of what the original text was and unable to explain
how it developed during transmissional history into all the other forms
now known to exist (in this paragraph I am merely paraphrasing Epp from
his "Requiem for a Discipline" and "Twentieth-Century Interlude" articles
in JBL, so please do not think this is merely a prejudiced Byzantine
opinion -- I would like to make Eldon J. Epp happy *:-).

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