Subject: Luke 12,58

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 17:53:56 +0100

On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

>After comparing the great number of verbal fluctuations in the >Matthean 
>and Lukan parallels (i.e. Lk 12,58; Mt 5,25), I believe my
>previous judgement is confirmed: the
>problem is NOT a grammatical issue, but is purely a
>transcriptional matter. Once more, I see no reason to depart from >the 
Byzantine/ Majority reading in those places, since itacistic >or other 
>transcriptional variation in a minority of witnesses commonly >occurs 
>throughout the text of the gospels.  The presumptive evidence >_still_
>remains fully in support of the majority reading in such cases.

Since the transcriptional matters involved in our discussion cut both ways, it 
is always possible to argue to the contrary. 

To my mind the discussion between Maurice and myself is caught up in a dead end 
situation. Therefore, I may resume the diverging positions from my point of 
view:

1) Maurice regards the Byz. (aorist subjunctive) readings as original, and 
argues with respect to the Alex. readings for "transcriptional variation in a 
minority of witnesses". 

2) I argue for the inferiority of the Byz. aorist subjunctives on the background 
of the more common "classical" feature these readings display.

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. The 
assumption of Byz. priority normally  derives from other conclusions (for 
example from hypotheses on how the overall transmission history may have 
developped). On the other hand, when adopting an eclectic viewpoint, one is 
always forced to look for "hard facts" (common errors, conflate readings), and, 
if possible, for common tendencies (expansions, shortenings, use of particles, 
atticistic and grammatical features of all sorts) in the various parts of MSS 
tradition. If such tendencies can be shown to transcendent the borders of 
individual NT writings, it seems to be most likely that they are part of the 
later textual transmission. 
Such is the case to my mind with respect to the indicative vs. subjunctive 
readings, where subjunctive must be seen as the more "classical" usage, 
throughout the whole NT textual transmission. I may refer to the already 
discussed MH(POTE) instances, and 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).   

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster