Subject: Luke 12,58 and beyond

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 13:51:19 -0400 (EDT)

On 24 Apr 96, Ulrich Schmid wrote:

>To my mind the discussion between Maurice and myself is caught up in a
>dead end situation.

I believe that Ulrich and I have concurred on this point in private 
correspondence, and I will attempt not to burden the tc-list with 
further discussion on the Lk.12.58 matter, let alone the posting of 
relevant portions of our private communication thereupon.

>I may add that from a Byz.-priority viewpoint one _only_ has to find
>even a slight transcriptional _possibility_ to defend the  original
>Byz. reading.

I have stated that I do think the cause of most non-Byzantine readings
is either accidental or unconscious alteration of the text.  This
position naturally requires an examination of transcriptional
probability before anything else (which is precisely what Hort himself
had urged: knowledge of documents precedes final judgment upon
readings).

I would not concur with Ulrich that I "only" require a "slight
transcriptional probability" in order to defend the Byzantine text.
>From internal grounds, the likelihood of a transcriptional error is
still required to be likely and plausible within normal expectation
limits regarding the nature of scribal activity as well as the
distribution of a variant among texttypes, sub-types, versional, and
patristic data.  The more widespread a variant reading may be among
these various sources, the less compelling an appeal to transcriptional
evidence will be.  There remain a large number of readings in which I
do _not_ appeal to transcriptional evidence specifically because of the
variety of witnesses which support such a variant.

The Lk.12:58 case was a situation in which (according to Von Soden and 
Tischendorf) less than 20 MSS read with the minority text, these 
primarily being Alexandrian with some Western; little patristic 
support, and apparently no versional support, and (especially to the 
point) the possibility of itacistic or transpositional cause is obvious 
in both the SE PARADWSEI/SE PARADW and BALEI/BALH variants.  In this 
particular case, my opinion was and still remains that appeal to 
transcriptional probabilities is extremely high.  

Contrast this with Metzger's Textual Commentary, where he repeatedly
argues transcriptional causes for the Byzantine/Majority reading in
situations where such are transcriptionally _unlikely_ due to the
quantity and variety of evidence (including versional and patristic)
supporting the Byzantine reading.  In retrospect, I would suggest that 
my own position on this matter remains more reasonable than that of 
Metzger.

>The assumption of Byz. priority normally  derives from
>other conclusions (for example from hypotheses on how the overall
>transmission history may have developped). 

This of course is correct, insofar as the basic theory is involved.  
However, in praxis, the examination of internal and external evidence 
supporting readings within a given variant unit remains essential, and 
no final decisions should be made until all the relevant factors have 
been fully and fairly evaluated, even within the framework of a 
Byzantine-priority hypothesis.  There still is much truth in the basic 
principles of internal evidence (such as the principles of the more
difficult reading and favoring the reading which appears to have given
rise to all the others) which truth does not compromise or contradict
the pro-Byzantine hypothesis in any serious manner.

>I may add the
>example of hINA clauses, where the Byz. text in general has a higher
>proportion of subjunctives than other witnesses. This observation is
>especilly compelling, when looking at the textual transmission of the
>Apocalypse (cf. 3,9; 6,4; 6,11; 8,3; 9,5b; 13,12; 14,13). In a text
>which is generally held to display the most "poor" Greek within the
>whole NT such a thorough revision of the Byz. text, converting most of
>hINA + ind.  into hINA + subj. is especially significant. (May be
>Maurice as an expert in the field of the Apocalypse text can explain
>this striking feature, though, I suspect, he will do it from a
>different angle).

I of course will approach the Apocalypse text in a manner entirely
different from that whereby I approach the remainder of the NT,
primarily because the Apocalypse does not have a single Byzantine
texttype but two competing "Byzantine" texts (Andreas and Q, which only
= Byz when united, which thankfully occurs more often than not), and
also because the grammar of the Apocalypse is a "grammar of ungrammar."
It is this latter point which Ulrich addresses in regard to the use of
the subjunctives following INA.

Let me first note that merely because the Apocalypse often does not
follow grammatical "rules" that this does not mean one automatically
should prefer a non-grammatical reading, nor that it should be assumed
that scribes would continually be correcting the grammar into that
which is "proper".  If the latter were the case, then the entire
Apocalypse would be highly grammatical in the later copies, which
anyone who examines Hoskier's collations will see is simply not the
case.

So if one should not automatically be considered a "rule" to prefer the
non-grammatical reading, one should also take into account the total
usage of a specific grammatical construction within that entire book.

In the case of INA and what follows it, there are far more _unquestioned_ 
cases of the "normal" subjunctive following INA than the seven cases 
noted by Ulrich where he would prefer the "ungrammatical" non-"Byzantine" 
reading.  These "normal" grammatical forms occur in Rev.2:10, 21; 3:11, 
18 [3x]; 6:2; 7:1; 8:6,12; 9:5a,15; 11:6, 12:4,6,14,15; 13:13,15,16; 
16:12,15; 18:4; 19:8,15,18; 20:3; 21:15,23.

Based upon these data, it would seem that the normal usage of the 
Apocalypse remains "grammatical" in regard to a subjunctive following 
INA.  There is thus no compelling reason to accept a minority reading 
found in Alexandrian MSS as original merely because they are 
ungrammatical.  The fact that certain other readings in the 
generally-accepted text of the Apocalypse are ungrammatical does not 
compel one to hunt down all ungrammatical readings in the MSS of that 
book and proclaim them as necessarily original on that basis.  

I suspect that if one consults Hoskier, he will find that in virtually
every instance following HINA there will be some few MSS which happen
to read something besides the "normal" subjunctive, but this is hardly
compelling evidence.  The real reason that the subjunctive was favored
by W-H and continued by the N27 editors still remains their view of
which MSS are "best" in the Apocalypse, and have little to do with a 
true grammatical analysis of the entire conspectus of that book.

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