Subject: James 2:18

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:59:38 +0100

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996 James R. Adair wrote:

> I have asked before whether Maurice (or anyone) can give me some examples in
> which the majority text (in the 9th/10th centuries) does _not_ contain what he
> considers to be the "original" reading.

I just came across two readings in Luke 12,58 which may well meet the
criteria required. The construction runs as follows: MHPOTE KATASURH...KAI
PARADWSEI... KAI BALEI. The unusual thing about this is the future tense
(PARADWSEI, BALEI) after MHPOTE. So consequently the vast majority of
manuscripts gives the aorist subjunctive for both readings (PARADW, BALH)
in order to fit in the classical pattern. These are clearly corrections and
therefor to be judged as secondary.

What is most impressive is the fact that for the reading PARADWSEI there
seems to be _no_ Koine minuscule support (cf. "Oxford Edition" loc. cit.).
And what is even more remarkable is the manuscript support for BALEI. Since
BALEI and BALH are phonetically identical, the interchange of both forms
might have often happened by chance. Nevertheless, there are only three
"old" Koine minuscules, 399 (9th/10th centuries, von Soden K 1), 461 (835
A.D., von Soden K 1), and 1351 (10th century, von Soden K x) which give the
reading BALEI, and -very impressive- in 399 BALEI is corrected to BALH. In
my opinion, this has to be seen as an indication of the growing awareness
of the differences in _grammar_.

To sum up: The aorist subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) in Luke 12,58 are not
"original" readings. The "original" readings (PARADWSEI, BALEI) as future
indicatives are absent from the majority text tradition of the 9th/10th
centuries.

Ulrich Schmid, Münster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 18:00:38 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote:

> (PARADWSEI, BALEI) after MHPOTE. 

Although unusual, the future tense after MHPOTE is not unique to the
critical text, but is also found in the Byzantine Textform in Mk.14:2
(MHPOTE QORUBOS ESTAI) and Heb.3:12 (MHPOTE ESTAI).  By the analogy given,
the Byzantine scribes should have been as swift to "correct" those
instances as well as in Lk.12:58.  Since they did not, the question is
whether the Alexandrian scribes may have had reason to alter the clause to
the future tense and to depart from the subjunctive. 

Blass-Debrunner note specifically that it is the introduction of the
future tense which is anomalous, since in some MSS "the fut.ind. has also
been introduced to a very limited degree in the very places where it would
not have been permissible in classical...usually with the aor.subj. as
variant" (sec.369[2])

More to the point, Bl-D. sec.370 note that MH "is combined in classical 
with the subjunctive if the anxiety is directed towards warding off 
something still dependent on the will, with the indicative of all tenses 
if directed toward something which has already taken place or is entirely 
independent of the will .... (1) usually strengthened by POTE or PWS ... 
and then always with the aor.subj. .... This construction is evidently 
literary and not a part of the vernacular."

Note within the context of Lk.12:58, the act of the will appears to be 
lacking in the final clauses, thereby giving some reason to alter the 
tense to the indicative.  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 therefore am not 
particularly surprised to find the non-Byzantine reading shifting to the 
future indicative here.  Rather than a mark of "originality" this use 
clearly seems to indicate something of a secondary nature; the later 
scribes did not have to "discover" grammar -- these principles were 
already part of their stock in trade. 

Robertson (p.987) also points out that the "ancient idiom" was that "where
in pure final sentences a past tense of the ind. was used if it is
distinctly implied that the purpose was not attained .... As a strictly
final particle it [MHPOTE] occurs either with the subj. or the future
ind., though the subj. is more common.  For the fut. ind. note Mt.7:6
([Alexandrian text]...though the [Byzantine] aor.subj. has support),
Mk.14:2...[mentions Lk.12:58 Alextxt also].  Both subj. and fut.ind. 
likewise occur in Mt.13:15 MH POTE IDWSIN -- KAI IASOMAI" [Byz and Alex
here agree]. 

It seems that the "grammatically-oriented" Byzantine scribes should also 
have been working overtime to "correct" the futures which remain within 
the Byzantine text in these other places rather than spending all their 
grammatical effort on Lk.12:58 and Mt.7:6.  Obviously, I fail to see any 
"error" in the Byzantine reading in light of all these comments, let 
alone any indication that the Byzantine scribes were any more likely to 
"correct" the grammar (when such was not needed) as opposed to the 
Alexandrian scribes simply abandoning the more literary form for the more 
common vernacular.  

I would further suggest, in light of certain MSS having altered the order 
of the text from SE PARADW into PARADW SE that this may well have given 
impetus for other scribes coming upon such in their exemplars to simply 
create PARADWSEI from that latter combination.  BALH and BALEI are of 
course homonymic and more likely the result of itacism than any other 
cause, but if a PARADW SE had become PARADWSEI, a "grammatical" scribe 
would have little option but to render BALH as BALLEI, else the 
construction would suffer.

To sum up from my viewpoint: The aorist subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) in Luke 
12,58 are clearly the original readings, and the future indicatives 
(PARADWSEI, BALEI) are merely grammatical shifts to the common vernacular 
which were likely occasioned by a transposition and scribal confusion 
plus required grammatical correction following that confusion.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.            Assoc.Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:54:23 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> ...
> ... 

I think text critics of all stripes should be wary of too much certainty 
in cases such as this.  The different readings could be no more than 
itacism.  On the other hand, there may have been gramatically-influenced 
correction one way or the other.  The fact that both the future 
indicative and aorist subjunctive appear in similar contexts in both 
Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, though not always in the same places, 
suggests that the scribes who might have been concerned with "grammatical 
correctness" in some places (I'll resist any analogy with PC here) were 
anything but consistent.  I will offer an OT analogy, however.  The 
tendency toward fuller spelling (plene readings) is evident in Masoretic 
mss, and especially in certain Qumran mss (e.g., 1QIsa-a, 11QPs-a), but 
plene readings are by no means ubiquitous: defective (shorter) spelling 
abounds throughout the Hebrew Bible, and although the concentration is 
higher in some books than in others, even within books there is very 
little consistency.  The point here is that scribes "correcting" their 
texts, whether for orthographic, grammatical, or theological reasons, 
just weren't very consistent, as a rule.

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: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:59:17 -0500 (EST)

> in cases such as this.  

Agreed. I should have less dogmatically stated that from my perspective 
there was no problem in seeing the subjunctives as the original readings 
as opposed to the futures.  Sometimes one just gets carried away. *;-)

> The different readings could be no more than 
> itacism.  

In the case of BALH/BALLEI this seems likely.  Not so in the case of 
PARADW/PARADWSEI however.

> anything but consistent.  

The Byzantine scribes certainly did not "correct" grammar wherever they 
could have done so.  Kilpatrick's article on "Atticism and the Text of 
the Greek NT" (where he primarily defends Byzantine readings) stands as a 
case in point.  However, neither did the Alexandrian scribes seize every 
opportunity.

> I will offer an OT analogy, however.  The 

There is a NT analogy to this in the cases of Hebrew names like David or 
Moses, where we find the variations even within the Byzantine MSS of 
DAUID/DAUEID/DABID and (the easy escape) the nomen sacrum DAD; for Moses 
we have MWSHS and MWUSHS, with various declensions scattered among the 
Byzantine MSS.  Likewise "Jerusalem", whether IEROUSOLHMA or IEROUSALHM. 
There is no consistency even within the same MS of orthography, and this 
is why most editors simply select a single orthography and go with it 
consistently (see, e.g. W-H's lengthy section on Orthography in their 
Introduction volume).

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~