Subject: Syriac + it-k

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:46:38 -0400

Regarding Maurice Robinson's two long posts in response to my reply to him,
I leave it to list readers to examine the evidence and decide.  I must,
however, take exception to one point in his post, namely that

>the word "may" utterly and dogmatically
>opposes any opposite notion that such could _not_ be the case.  To
>express uncertainty in any given situation is to dogmatically claim
>that statements to the contrary are to be considered erroneous.  E.g.,
>"Scholars who agree with my views _may_ be right, even if no other
>scholar should agree."

Robinson has failed, in my view, to make a distinction here between known
situations and unknown situations.  "May" is certainly inappropriate where
we have absolute knowledge to the contrary ("Trees _may_ not need oxygen or
light to live.").  But where we do NOT have absolute knowledge--and Robinson
admits that this is the case in the instance of the text of the NT (see the
last paragraph of his second post)--then _may_ is not dogmatic on Souter's
part, but is entirely appropriate, for _neither_ side can speak with
absolute certainty ("The time-space continuum _may_ be infinite.").  While
this is a subtle distinction, I'm sure it is not lost on this erudite audience.

P.S.:  As for being hung in cages in that beautiful university city of
Muenster, I would guess that those who _did_ the hanging _also_ had an
aversion to "may"... [ :-)]

Petersen--Penn State University.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:00:42 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:

> I leave it to list readers to examine the evidence and decide.  

I too will leave this matter (of whether "may" or the "uncertainty
principle" is appropiate) to the readers, who by now have all made up
their own minds and who probably think we are making mountains out the the
proverbial molehills. 

We still concur on the _extremely limited_ application of "may" in
relation to versions or fathers standing alone (which rarely occurs), or
in cases of pure conjecture (also infrequent).  Far too much of textual
criticism is based upon probabilities and speculation, but there is no
alternative.  We argue primarily from speculation based upon the extant
data, and the results of our arguement become dogmatic.  Some will presume
the uncertainty principle; others will reject it.  I only suggest that
one's working methodology continue primarily to reflect the data and not
become too far lost in hypothetical speculation. 

> aversion to "may"... [ :-)]

When I was over there in 1989, I desperately sought for a t-shirt which 
read "This Baptist survived Muenster."  Didn't find it. *;-)

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