Subject: Luke 12,58

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 96 09:19:53 +0100

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> (Ulrich Schmid wrote on 1 Apr 96)...

>> Given the fact, that in Lk 12,58 the "Byzantine reading reflects
>> the literary, if not the classical perspective what about the 
>> argument from lectio difficilior? I may refer to your case on
>> 1.Cor 13,3, the so-called "future subjunctive" of the Byzantine
>> tradition.

> This is twisting the Bl.-Debr. comment around: the "literary" as
> opposed to the "vernacular" regards those constructions such as
> are found in the Alexandrian MSS of Lk.12.58, where a fine line
> is drawn between matters dependent on the will and those not
> dependent on such. The Byzantine text is the one which does NOT
> reflect the classical perspective, but merely the normal
> vernacular which subsumes all elements of a clause under the
> leading subjunctive. Am I being misunderstood on this point?

I must confess that I am a little bit confused about this 
statement, because on Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> 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 was only quoting.

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson further wrote:

> The classical use of the subjunctive occurs "if the
> anxiety is directed towards warding off something still dependent
> on the will" say Bl.-Debr., but this strictly applies only to the 
> initial KATASURH _if_ settlement is not made with the adversary. 
> All further clauses remain subjunctive under normal grammatical 
> patterns, since they remain dependent upon the initial condition
> not being fulfilled (MHPOTE).  This is classical usage and the
> normal grammatical pattern one encounters in the NT.  The case is
> clearly conditional, and requires the normal use of the 
> subjunctive throughout the clauses (like the mathematical
> distributive law).

Again, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Wihch side gives the classical 
usage, and which side the more common vernacular?

>From my point of view I may suggest how the misunderstanding 
possibly arose. Therefor, I would like to give the main outline 
of the arguments (to be shure, from my perspective) without quoting 
too much (additions, corrections, etc. are required).  

1) In my initial post I judged the subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) as 
assimilations to KATASURH in order to fit the classical pattern.   

2) Maurice agreed with respect to the classical pattern, but 
disagreed with respect to the secondary nature of the readings. He, 
on the other hand, provided a scenario mainly on grammatical 
grounds in order to explain the secondary nature of the Alex. 
future indicatives. Referring to Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.) he judged 
the Alex. readings as "reflecting common vernacular rather than 
normal literary style".

3) I in the main agree with the last sentence, though I dare to 
call the Alex. readings "common vernacular", simply because I do 
not no know exactly to what extend Bl.-Deb. (and Maurice) are using 
the terms "common vernacular". But, what I do know is the fact that 
these readings do _not_ reflect classical usage. And therefor, I 
judged them with respect to the lectio difficilior argument as 
secondary corrections in order to fit the classical pattern.    

4) I suspect that the lectio difficilior argument caused Maurice to 
rethink his initial claim, for now it is the "Byzantine 
text...which does NOT reflect the classical perspective, but merely 
the normal vernacular...". He achieved this twist by supposing that 
"the 'litterary' as opposed to the 'vernacular' regards those 
constructions such as are found in the Alexandrian MSS of Lk.12.58, 
where a fine line is drawn between matters dependent on the will 
and those not dependent on such". Again, this reasoning is 
dependent on Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.). But nevertheless, what was 
initially labled to be "common vernacular" (i.e. Alex. indicatives) 
has now turned out to be a grammatically sophisticated construction 
which "(depending on the edition of Bl.-Debr. used) _may_ reflect a 
more 'classical' and literary approach".

On this outline of the discussion from my perspective I would like 
to comment:

a) To my mind this last claim simply implies too much sophitication 
on the Alexandrian side. With this example in mind the overall 
agreed reading in Heb 3,12 makes from an Alexandrian mindset no 
sense at all. Note in Lk 12,58, where after MHPOTE there are three 
finite verbs, the Alexandrians drew "a fine line" between the first 
and the two others, and in Heb 3,12, where there is only one finite verb, they 
simply failed to realize the notion of will so plainly stated. 

b) The whole situation becomes even more puzzling if I may take 
into account what Maurice further wrote:

> I really do not know what may have motivated a small group of
> scribes in any given situation, so all here is speculation.  
> I do suspect that the use of the indicative here by the
> Alexandrian MSS may reflect a recensional mindset aligned in some
> way with the classical restorations performed in Alexandria,
> which mindset may well focus on peculiar items like the
> indicative vs. subjunctive situation. There may also be a
> reflection as to the way Greek grammar was practiced in Egypt as
> opposed to elsewhere in the Roman world; also perhaps some
> influence from Coptic grammatical structure.  

These are truely speculations, and, again, they portray the 
Alexandrians with respect to the "indicative vs. subjunctive 
situation" as partly hypersophisticated and partly foolish (c.f. Heb 3,12).

c) So I may leave speculation aside and return to the facts:
Final MH(POTE) is usually connected with (mainly aorist) subjunctive. This can 
be called the normal, or "classical" pattern. On the other hand we have 
undisputed evidence of some readings in the New Testament, which certainly do 
_not_ reflect "classical" usage with respect to the grammatical features under 
discussion. Maurice already mentioned two of them, Mk 14,2 (though note, some 
later minuscules "correct" the fut.ind. to aor.subj.) and Heb 3,12. It is 
precisely from this point of view that the argument from lectio difficilior 
becomes valid. Because it is much more likely to assume that in the line of 
transmission the more _unlitterary_ features are prone to "correction" than the 
other way round. Note, this is only a rule of thumb, but to my mind it fits 
perfectly well to the data involved in this discussion (cf. Mt 7,6; 13,15; Mk 
14,2; Lk 12,58; John 12,40; Act 28,27; Heb 3,12). The evidence I reviewed up to 
now points to only one conclusion: The later textual transmission (incl. Byz.) 
gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with respect to the grammatical 
features under discussion, than the other witnesses. A preliminary glance at the 
INA clauses seems to point in the same direction.

d) To hopefully avoid some misconception I should add that I don't 
want to even the data. I shurely will not blame the Byzantine 
scribes for not having "corrected" all the indicatives, nor do I 
wish to propose conjectural emendation where a subjunctive might be 
"desperatly required". (This I stated with referrence to Heb 3,12 
only because I commented on Maurice introducing the notion of will. 
I think, the overall agreed future indicative in Heb 3,12 confirms 
my suggestion that the notion of will is not at work when 
speculating on reasons for scribes altering the text.) 

I just wished to have as many data as possible from as many manuscripts as 
possible to assess grammatical features like that in order to get a 
comprehensive picture of shifts in a _historical_ perspective. The data which 
are up to now under discussion are in favour of my position: The later textual 
transmission (incl. Byz.) gives a higher proportion of classical usage, with 
respect to the 
grammatical features under discussion, than the other witnesses. 
Note, I am open to change my mind, but not on the ground of 
speculations like the above mentioned.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 16:25:34 -0500 (EST)

>> The Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if not the classical

Oops!...If I wrote that, it was a "lapsus manus", and I must have typed
"Byzantine"  instead of "Alexandrian"; I confess scribal error in that
case (or maybe I became totally confused and discombobulated).  Please
correct any assumptions based upon this error. 

My position _should_ have stated that, following what I read in Bl.-D., it
was the _Alexandrian_ text which followed the literary perspective, while
the Byzantine followed the normal "popular" or "normally grammatical"
framework. 

> usage, and which side the more common vernacular?

I intend to state that the Koine of the Byztxt gives the "normal" 
classical usage, in which all verbs subsumed under a subjunctive clause
remain subjunctive; this is also the "popular" usage.  The switch to
non-subjunctive verbal forms in the clause would reflect the "literary
classical" form as opposed to either the "normal" or "popular" form.  I
suspect that the error noted above or my own confused writing has caused
all this confusion;  please adjust accordingly *;-)

> the Alex. readings as "reflecting common vernacular rather than 

This is the opposite of what I intended. The Alex readings would reflect
the peculiar "literary style" rather than what would normally appear in
popular Koine or in normal classical style. 

> secondary corrections in order to fit the classical pattern.    

I agree that these readings do not reflect "normal" classical usage, but
only the ephemeral "literary" usage suggested by Bl.-D.  If Bl.-D. have
later abandoned their suggestion on this point, then the variant unit
devolves into transcriptional rather than grammatical issues (which is
where I suspect it belongs in the first place). 

> the normal vernacular...". 

Correction again, the Byz reflects the "normal vernacular" which also
coincides with the normal "classical" approach, but not with the
artificial "literary" approach.  I am not intending to twist the matters,
but I believe this stems from an initial misunderstanding of what I
intended as I cited Bl.-D., plus the error of reading "Byzantine" when it
should have been "Alexandrian." I again apologize for the confusion.  Did
I write that at 3AM?!  I think that even _I_ have to go back and re-read
my own posts! *;-)

> on the Alexandrian side. 

I actually consider the Alexandrian text to exhibit numerous cases of
stylistic sophistication which are not present in the Byzantine text. I
would suggest the likelihood of an Alexandrian local-text recension
(contra Fee) which proceeded more on literary than upon vernacular
grounds, and which also may have been affected by Coptic grammatical
influences. 

> With this example in mind the overall 
> sense at all. 

Nor from a Byzantine mindset. So why did not one scribe alter the text 
there to a subjunctive?  Simply because the text was held to be 
acceptable, for whatever reasons (grammatical, theological, etc.).  If 
that reading simply "cried out" for a subjunctive, some scribe at least 
should have made the alteration.  Maybe a "primitive error" exists? *;-)

> Note in Lk 12,58, where after MHPOTE there are three 
> and the two others, and in Heb 3,12, where there is only one finite verb, 
> they simply failed to realize the notion of will so plainly stated. 

This is again supposing that Bl.-D. are correct on the notion of will 
being involved.  I do not think the "fine line" distinction in Lk can 
hold, since the initial subjunctive remained such in Lk -- in Heb, what 
should have been the initial subjunctive simply wasn't, and even the 
Alexandrian scribes should have thought such peculiar; yet no attempts to 
correct the "problem."  I suspect we know far less about how scribes 
perceived points of grammar than we think.

> situation" as partly hypersophisticated and partly foolish (c.f. Heb 3,12).

I do not see it that way at all.  Most recensional activity would be 
practices on the gospels.  The disputed nature of the book of Hebrews may 
have called for less activity.  However, my claim in regard to Heb.3.12 
is that such _is_ "grammatical", and obviously, since it caused no 
problems to scribes of _any_ textual tradition, we have to rethink some 
of our notions on NT Greek grammar.  In Lk.12.58 on the other hand, if 
transcriptional reasons alone do not account for the alterations (which I 
think primarily the case), then there well may have been some fine points 
of literary style which may have influenced the change.  I only bring up 
the grammatical possibilities in an attempt to possibly explain the 
reason for alteration, even though I consider transcriptional cause primary.
 
> be called the normal, or "classical" pattern. 

The issue is not with the normal use of a subjunctive following MHPOTE,
but whether all remaining verbs in a subjunctive clause will remain 
subjunctive as well. 

> On the other hand we have 
> later minuscules "correct" the fut.ind. to aor.subj.) and Heb 3,12. 

Once more, I do not consider either Mk.14.2 or Heb.3.12 as ungrammatical
or as not reflecting classical usage.  The scribes themselves did not so
consider, and it is erroneous for us to make those specific cases using
the irregular verb "to be" as normative for what will take place in every
case where MHPOTE appears.  I brought up those two cases only to
demonstrate that, even in the Byzantine text of the NT, there is no
scribal proclivity to alter indicatives following MHPOTE into
subjunctives, which is what Ulrich claimed occurred in Lk.12.58. 

> It is 
> other way round. 

But again, following Bl.-D. it appears that a peculiar _literary_ variety 
of grammar is reflected in allowing remaining verbs in a subjunctive 
clause to be indicatives.  Both "normal" classical and Koine vernacular 
would have the verbs within the clause totally in the subjunctive (the 
verb "to be" perhaps being the only exception?).

> The later textual transmission (incl. Byz.) 

Kilpatrick in his article on Atticism in the Greek NT would differ
strongly from that conclusion, since he finds the primary problem in that
regard within the Alexandrian rather than the Byzantine text. 
 
> speculations like the above mentioned.

Since so much of what is done in text-critical theory is speculation 
(including my own hypothesis), it seems difficult to think anyone from 
any text-critical school will soon change his or her mind while following 
the normal patterns.  

I acknowledge that my own opinion changed radically from eclecticism to
Byzantine-priority after carefully studying all the data and developing a
history of transmission which takes all known data into account. 

Is there anyone out there who has come to a _modern eclectic_ position who
was not initially trained in such and accepted such from the beginning? 

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