Subject: Re: Future subjunctive

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:12:11 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> > 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.

True, it's a Pauline word, but it is used in an unusual manner (a hapax 
in conjunction with PARADW and SWMA! :-) ), so I can imagine a scribe 
might have wondered what exactly Paul was trying to say.  If this reading 
is original, however, I would guess that the transition to KAUQH- was 
primarily unintentional, spurred by the similarity of sound more than any 
supposed difficulty with the text.

> > 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.
> 
> 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. 

I'm obviously missing something here.  My contention is that many scribes 
would have taken KAUQHSWMAI as equivalent to KAUQHSOMAI, just a phonetic 
variant (obviously some didn't, hence the -OMAI readings).  What are you 
saying about KAUQHSWMAI, that it is really a future subjunctive, that it 
is blatantly erroneous, of something else?

By the way, I think you, I, and Carlton Winbery all agree that KAUQHSWMAI 
is the middle term in this equation.  The question is whether there is a 
lineal descent from KAUXHSWMAI to KAUQHSWMAI to KAUQHSOMAI or whether 
both of the other terms derived independently from an original 
KAUQHSWMAI.  In either case, the certainly grammatical KAUQHSOMAI is not 
original, ne c'est pas?

> 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. 

Why conclude this and not rather that the Byzantine text was a local text 
tradition that happened to have been the one that was accepted, for 
whatever historical or theological reasons, by the majority of the 
church?  I would venture to suggest that the text-type current in 
Constantinople would carry more sway than others, much as the bishops of 
Rome and later Constantinople carried more sway than their "equals" 
elsewhere.  And if the Byzantine text was based on a local text, it was 
one that was younger by a century or two than the Alexandrian, Western, 
and probably other no-longer-extant text-traditions.
 
A parallel from the text of the OT might be in order here.  The
present-day Masoretic Text (also an MT!) seems to be a collection of
different types of text, some fuller (Jeremiah, Samuel) and others less
full (Kings, Esther) than other mss of their day.  Whether this situation
reflects different local texts (Cross) or texts from different strata of
society (Talmon) is immaterial for the present discussion.  The point is
that the text-types preserved in the MT were originally local
(geographically or sociologically) texts, not official. 

> 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.

Conjectural emendation is certainly not in vogue in NT textual 
criticism.  However, I believe that NT text criticism should take a cue 
from their OT counterparts on this issue and at least consider emendation 
for difficult passages such as the ones W-H mention.  Those were the 
"numerous other instances" I was referring to (not to say that I would 
accept all of their proposals by any means, but there are a large number 
of them).  Of course, it is more frequently the case that easier, secondary 
readings proliferate, readings that seem to characterize (in general) the 
Byzantine text-type more than the earlier ones, particularly the Alexandrian.
But that opens up a whole new set of questions!

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: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:18:03 -0500 (EST)

> in conjunction with PARADW and SWMA! :-) )

This is certain, but in that case almost any Pauline verse will have 
three words in close conjunction which ends up hapax.  (The more words 
multiplied in a search request, obviously the fewer "hits" there will be).

> so I can imagine a scribe 
> might have wondered what exactly Paul was trying to say.  

As Metzger noted in his commentary, even the reading KAUXHSWMAI would be
problematic.  Fact is, neither reading is hermeneutically simple; only
that "boast" is a far more "normal" Pauline word in any context than is
"burn" (which elsewhere occurs in Paul only in "it is better to marry than
to burn", if I recall correctly). 

> variant (obviously some didn't, hence the -OMAI readings).  

Even though there are numerous cases of individual MSS showing itacistic
confusion of all types, in general such confusion (producing an
"ungrammatical" form) does not occur in the primary MSS of a single
texttype consistently, let alone in a single peculiar reading.  

Especially in the age of the minuscules, scribes might be more expected to
correct grammatical anomalies, presuming an error in their exemplars, but
in this case they made no correction, but allowed the anomaly to stand
without alteration.  This type of situation speaks rather strongly toward
the originality of the anomalous form, even if we (and the vast majority
of scribes) did not know how to regard the word.  

Since the scribes did not correct an apparent anomaly (which admitted of
easy correction by changing the -W- to -O-), and since virtually
everywhere else in the NT texttypes as a whole are generally precise on
grammatical form and orthography, I cannot believe that the Byzantine
reading reflects mere itacistic confusion.   Something more is involved.

> What are you 

With no other examples of Future Subjunctives in all of Greek literature, 
I would find it difficult to argue that Paul deliberately created a 
future subjunctive here in a context difficult enough of interpretation 
even with "correct" grammatical forms.  I have no grammatical "solution" 
to this anomalous form, but I do believe the data fully supports that 
-SWMAI would be the original form.  Look at the evidence: both the 
Alexandrian and the Byzantine reading end in -SWMAI; some which have the 
basic Byzantine reading "correctly" read -SOMAI; and why would more than 
a few dozen scribes at most deliberately or even accidentally change 
-SOMAI into -SWMAI, and then have such change not only remain uncorrected 
by subsequent scribes (especially in the more "grammatical" age of the 
minuscules), but also for such a peculiar reading to utterly dominate the 
manuscript tradition.  I might be well prepared to defend what is the 
Byzantine reading on transcriptional grounds, but from an exegetical 
standpoint, I have no definite conclusion.

> KAUQHSWMAI.  In either case, the certainly grammatical KAUQHSOMAI is not 

That correctly reflects my opinion.  Metzger in his Textual Commentary, 
however, seems to suggest that KAUQHSOMAI is the "true" Byzantine 
reading, which most Byzantine MSS have corrupted into KAUQHSWMAI.  If 
Metzger were correct here, I would then conclude that the Alexandrian 
KAUXHSWMAI would be even a later development from the "corrupted" form.  
In either case, I still would not consider the Alexandrian reading to be 
original.

> church?  

Following the Streeter model of local text theory (which I believe is in 
the main correct), the local texts would originate from a basic text 
which was permeating the entire geographical spectrum.  What would 
distinguish the local text from the base text would be the creation of 
purely localized variations, which variations would not spread by an 
normal transmissional means far beyond their original localities.  

Even were such local text MSS to arrive at different localities, those
copying them would immediately or within one or two copying generations
end up comparing and cross-correcting the "foreign" exemplar with one from
their own locale, which for the most part would eliminate the "outside"
local nature of subsequent copies.  

Over a lengthy period of time (speaking in terms of centuries), and
especially with the freer communication and exchange of MSS following the
legitimization of Christianity under Constantine, the same tendency would
become more universalized.  Rather than ONE local text growing and growing
to dominate the field (which is transmissionally implausible in the
extreme, given the situation of monks and copyists during most centuries),
it is far more likely that the ongoing process of cross-comparison and
correction would inexorably tend to bring all MSS slowly back to the
original "universal" base text which existed before the localized variants
were created, which "universal" base text could only be the autograph. 

It is far easier to view transmissional history from this type of a
perspective than to create more and more implausible historical scenarios
which would attempt to turn a "local text" into a dominant text --
something Streeter never suggested nor envisioned. 

> I would venture to suggest that the text-type current in 
> elsewhere.  

By this analogy, there should never have been the problems in the Old
Latin text, with all its multifarious versions and alterations.  Rome's
use of the Latin should have been so influential that Jerome would never
have needed to be commissioned to produce order (the Vulgate) out of chaos
(the Old Latin texts).  

The history of the Greek MSS reflects clearly an era of uncontrolled
popular transmission, up to around AD 200;  however, there was no Greek
Jerome commissioned or needed to restore textual uniformity and/or order
out of the Greek MSS (claims regarding Lucian for the NT text lack all
historical verifiability as well as plausibility).  

The Greek MSS, without official "control" or "sponsorship" of a single
unified text, somehow by the normal processes of copying and correcting
MSS, ended up with a basically unitary Textform in the Byzantine text. 
Yet there clearly are sufficient sub-groups within the Byzantine Textform
and variations within individual Byzantine MSS to demonstrate that NO
controls were ever sought or imposed in regard to that text.  As I state
in the introduction to my Greek NT edition, the reason for this is simple:
barring a formally-commissioned revision in the manner or Jerome, the
results of which are then dogmatically imposed by formal decree, "only a
common pre-existing archetype will permit order ever to come out of
chaos." 

> And if the Byzantine text was based on a local text, it was 

On what basis can the Byzantine Textform be argued to be "younger" than
the other texttype traditions?  Certainly not from the arguments essayed
by Westcott and Hort (conflation, harmonization, smoother readings, etc.),
since each and every one of these allegations can be shown not to
characterize the Byzantine text any more than in the leading witnesses of
the other texttypes. 

Assuming that the Byzantine Text can be defended in any given portion of
text on internal grounds (much as I have done for the 1Cor13:3 reading as
well as the alleged harmonization reading earlier discussed), if such
defense were to be extended sequentially from variant to variant within a
pericope, a chapter, or an entire book, the cumulative result of continued
defense of individual Byzantine readings would point directly to the
originality of the Byzantine Textform as an entity.  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." 
  
> (geographically or sociologically) texts, not official. 

Without getting far into the nature of OT text criticism (since this is
not germane to my discussion and also reflects a VERY different historical
and transmissional situation), I would note that, insofar as the
transmission of the purely Massoretic pointed text goes (being within the
same centuries as the main manuscript transmission of the Greek NT text),
the critical Leningrad B19a text -- even though Ben Asher -- basically
reflects the Hebrew equivalent of the "Byzantine" text, since the Ben
Asher and Ben Chayyim traditions vary little more than do the Kx and Kr
traditions.  In this case, the pertinent OT transmissional example
supports the parallel Byzantine-priority model for the Greek NT. 

> for difficult passages such as the ones W-H mention.  

This goes beyond even the rigorous eclectics such as Kilpatrick and
Elliott, and seems like a moving back in time to the era of W-H.  I am
perfectly willing to allow the labels "difficult" and "peculiar" to stand
with regard to certain readings (and this even in the Alexandrian or
Western texts), even if I cannot resolve them with certainty.  In light of
the wealth of MS, Versional, and Patristic date which we have, personally
do not see any need for conjecture or suspecting "primitive error" as did
W-H. 

> Of course, it is more frequently the case that easier, secondary 
> readings proliferate, 

I agree with this, and the evidence of individual MSS of all texttypes
supports such an assumption. However, the "easy" readings never appear to
dominate any single texttype, let alone the entire transmissional
tradition.  Yet if they were so much "easier" to the scribes, why then did
they not act en masse in accordance with the "general tendency" which has
been alleged to them?  Only in the case of specific readings within the
Byzantine Textform where that Textform happens to disagree with the
currently-favored eclectic text are allegations as to the "general
tendency of scribes" made to explain away the Byzantine reading as a thing
inconvenient. 

Scholars should carefully study ALL the variant readings found among all
MSS and notice how very many are "easier" or "harmonizing" or "fuller" or
"expansions," etc., and then compare the total result with the amount
alleged against the Byzantine Text.  Had the scribes in any way acted
consistently with their alleged expectations, the Byzantine text as an
entity would be the smoothest, most harmonious, and easiest text known to
man -- but it would also be significantly different from that which now
exists under the Byzantine rubric, since the Byzantine scribes left far 
too many "difficult" places utterly untouched.

> readings that seem to characterize (in general) the 

Again, I would suggest that any Byzantine readings which are supposedly
"characteristic" abound in almost equal number with the Alexandrian or
Western MSS.  I would further suggest (quite seriously) that, with profit,
W-H's description of the supposed characteristics of the Byzantine Text
could be simply applied to the MSS of the Alexandrian texttype and vice
versa with no significant changes.  I yet have to see a clear 
demonstration of an Alexandrian reading which "must" be correct, for 
which the Byzantine text would have no defense on internal, 
transmissional, or transcriptional grounds.

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

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 17:17:02 -0500 (EST)

I'm going to respond to a couple of points, then I plan to let the topic 
rest for now.  I think perhaps we've ridden this particular horse far enough!

On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> [snip]  

I have a problem with your historical conclusion here.  Why should we
believe that continuous copying and correcting of mss from different
locales would restore the text to a state approximating its original form? 
By the same rationale, one could argue that as a result of the theological
disputes from Nicea to Chalcedon, Constantinople, and beyond the church
was able to reconstruct and restore the doctrinal system of the early
church.  I for one don't believe that is what happened.  Your reference to
Jerome seems to favor my position as well.  It's true that the state of OL
mss cried out for control, but just because Jerome was able to produce a
single, consistent text, does that mean that it reflected the original
readings, either Latin or Greek?  I don't think so.  I think understanding
the history of the church and its relationship with the state illuminates
the history of the text of the NT, but I don't think the evidence is
sufficient to be anything more than suggestive about what might plausibly
have transpired in the transmission of the text.  Thus, I don't think any
text-type, Byzantine or Alexandrian, can be established as preferable on a
historical basis.  I realize that this position calls into question to
some extent the value of external evidence in evaluating textual variants. 

> 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.

Jimmy Adair

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 23:51:44 -0500 (EST)

> rest for now.  I think perhaps we've ridden this particular horse far enough!

If the horse isn't already dead *:-)  I of course would be pleased to 
move on to other topics as well.

> locales would restore the text to a state approximating its original form? 

So long as the copying and cross-correction were being performed in 
relatively distinct areas and situations without an imposed control, one 
would expect nothing more to arise than the various "local texts".  
Transmissionally, the situation would continue to devolve more and more 
away from the autograph in such a process, and this fits in quite well 
with the "uncontrolled popular text of the second century" concept of 
Colwell, as well as with the "local text" theory of Streeter.  

The Old Latin MSS would provide the best analogy, since they tended more 
and more toward chaos as their transmissional history progressed.  

Once either controls were imposed (for which I see no historical 
evidence) or when increased communication became possible in a 
church-state relationship after Constantine, it would be natural that MSS 
which differed from one another would be compared with one another during 
the copying process and cross-correction would occur.  By no "normal" 
means of transmission in such a model would any of the local texts be 
able to gain the ascendancy, but rather all competing local texts would 
slowly "mellow out" to a common pre-existing text which permeated the 
bulk of the tradition.  Thus, without formal controls, a process would 
occur which would inevitably result in the elimination of local text 
differences and which would tend back to the common text which originally 
had existed.

> church.  

This analogy breaks down since there was definite forward progress in 
doctrinal theology which occurred at each of these historical points, and 
one cannot go backward from a known historical innovation to thereby 
reconstruct previous theology.  On the other hand, when scholars wanted 
to restore Jerome's original Vulgate text, they did go backward, 
systematically eliminating all the known alterations and corruptions 
which occurred during the various revision periods (these of course were 
historically known revisions), and I think that would reflect a closer 
analogy to the situation, except that there was no systematic project to 
reconstruct the autograph text during the era of Byzantine MS transmission.

> I for one don't believe that is what happened.  

Nor does anyone from the eclectic school *:-) Obviously, presuppositions
rather than history or methodology causes the dichotomy between the
differing approaches and their conclusions.  Were I to grant the eclectic 
presuppositions, I would hold precisely the view you do (which in fact is 
what I once held before I began detailed study into the situation).

> just because Jerome was able to produce a
> readings, either Latin or Greek?  I don't think so.  

Nor do I.  A revision of the text during the transmissional period by a 
single person or even by a committee would at best produce only a useful 
and adequate version of the text.  Even though most of that text would 
reflect the autograph, the chances of it fully equaling the autograph 
are slim.  On the other hand, the "process" view of text-restoration done 
apart from formal control and formal revision would stand a far better 
likelihood of reverting back to the autograph, and this is what I have 
been maintaining in the discussion.  There is nothing implausible about 
such a scenario. 

> some extent the value of external evidence in evaluating textual variants. 

One of the strongest assertions Kenneth Clark made to me was that the
original text HAD to be located in one specific texttype.  He did not know
which one, of course, but he was dead certain that this had to be the
case.  Otherwise (as he noted), we would have to believe that the
transmission of the text was like the Isis-Osiris legend, in which the
original text was chopped into numerous pieces and scattered to the winds,
and we -- like lamenting Isis -- must attempt to pick the pieces out one
by one from the various MS repositories they now inhabit.  

His further complaint was that, given any critical edition of the text,
when compared with any select group of known MSS, one will soon discover
that what the critical editors are attempting to pass off as the autograph
is in fact a text which is not found in any single MS or texttype (even as
a reconstructed entity).  Indeed, one cannot often find even ten verses in
a row in the current critical editions which read that way in any known
MS. (of course, an edition of the Byzantine text can easily demonstrate
numerous sequential verses without variation in almost all MSS comprising
that texttype). 

Clark admitted that he and Colwell had considered the Alexandrian text to 
be the texttype closest to the autograph; however, Clark changed his 
opinion on that score after he and Colwell abandoned as hopeless their 
project to reconstruct the Alexandrian texttype in a planned edition.  
Clark still maintained that the original text must be localized in a 
single texttype, and admitted that the Byzantine was the only real 
remaining candidate (draw your own conclusions from that).  One of the 
last things Clark told me before his death was that he would like to have 
another lifetime to reconstruct his entire textual theory, and that his 
inclinations toward the authenticity of the text which in fact was that 
traditionally perpetuated would be able to be well supported.  Basically 
he told me he was far too old for that (he died shortly thereafter), but 
encouraged me to pursue that goal (which I mention merely so you can see 
some of where I am coming from text-critically).

> emphasis placed on internal than on external evidence.  

I will concur with this, but with the reminder that eclectic methodology 
which proceeds without a well-defined history of transmission of the text 
will prove ultimately unfruitful and unsupported.  If apart from such a 
transmissional history I could argue favorably for every single Byzantine 
reading (as mentioned previously), this would not be anywhere near as 
convincing as having first a solid transmissional history as the working 
hypothesis on which to base conclusions.

> would indicate a theological or transcriptional Tendenz.   

Yoder's work on Codex Bezae in Acts is a good model of that approach. I 
think it valid when dealing with single MSS or with families and minor 
textual grouping, but I have serious doubts as to whether it can be 
applied on the texttype level, even to the Alexandrian text.  As for the 
autograph text (whatever it might be), it obviously from the point of 
composition had its own "tendency" as well -- one which cannot be blamed 
on copyists or revisers.

> However, no

No a priori assumption of superiority should be made; only a conclusion 
of such after a careful study of all the data.  Modern eclecticism still 
errs greatly in their presupposition of what comprises the "best" MSS, 
and from there the "best text" etc.  What is dearly needed for almost all 
textual scholars is to divest themselves of all such presuppositions 
which they adopted axiomatically, and begin to evaluate the evidence 
wholly afresh, and thereby to construct a new and different methodology 
which will do more than simply repeat the same slogans and canons of 
criticism.