Subject: Luke 12,58

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 10:13:11 +0100

First, I have to apologize my late dealing with this subject again. It's due to 
some days of vacancies.

On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> 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.  

First of all, I would like to comment on Blass-Debrunner sec. 370. Since I do 
not know exactly which edition/translation of this tool of reference you are 
referring to, Maurice, I may add that the formulation "MH...wird in der klass. 
Sprache mit dem Konj. verbunden, wenn die Besorgnis abwehrend auf etwas noch vom 
Willen Abhaengiges, mit dem Indik. aller Tempora, wenn sie auf etwas schon 
Geschehenes oder überhaupt vom Willen Unabhaengiges gerichtet ist" (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) is replaced by "...wird in der klass. Sprache mit dem 
Konj. verbunden, wenn die Besorgnis auf etwas Zukuenftiges, mit dem Indik. aller 
Tempora, wenn sie auf etwas schon Geschehenes gerichtet ist" (Ergaenzungsheft zu 
Blass-Debrunner, 12th edition, Goettingen 1970). 

Note, the reference to "the act of the will" is completaly abandonned, 
supposedly due to its inappropriatness. 

But, since you may rely on the formulation of the older edition, for judging it 
appropriate, I would like to add some further comments on the scenario you 
provided.

1) If, "within the context of Lk. 12:58, the act of will appears to be lacking 
in the final clauses", then the indicative tense and _not_ the Byzantine 
subjunctive ought to be judged as reflecting "the literary, if not the classical 
perspective".

2) If the Alexandrian scribes are so conscious with regard to the act of the 
will in Lk 12,58, what about the first verb KATASURH? And what about the 
indicative in Heb 3,12 where the subjunctive is so desperately required?  

3) 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. 

On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, you wrote:
> The bigger problem is that it not only is 'not good Greek' but it > blatantly 
appears to be erroneus by suggesting a non-existent 
> future subjunctive. I fail to see how scribes in the main would 
> simply allow such an anomalous reading to stand.

Here in 1.Cor 13,3 you pushed the argument from lectio difficilior so far that 
it results in suggesting an erroneus reading in the autograph in order to defend 
the authenticity of the Byzantine text. In Lk 12,58 on the other hand, you feel 
comfortable with a Byzantine reading that "reflects the literary, if not the 
classical perspective". For someone who does not a priori know which reading is 
"the original" it is not easy to follow your arguments.  

4) You wrote:

> 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.

I simply fail to see how one single minusule (1071, 12th century) can be 
referred to as "certain MSS". Note, versions and (Latin) fathers are usually no 
secure witnesses to alterations in word order of that limited effect.
 
5) You wrote (quoting Robertson):
 
> "Both subj. and fut.ind. likewise occur in Mt 13:15 MH POTE > IDWSIN -- KAI 
IASOMAI" [Byz and Alex here agree].

I'm afraid that your assertion in brackets is somehow ambiguous. Only the vast 
majority of von Sodens K 1 agrees here with Alex. K x is divided, 15 manuscripts 
out of 50, K r in total, and Chrysostomos give the subj. IASWMAI. Even more 
interesting is the fact that Mt 13,15 is a quotation from Is 6,10 (the LXX MSS 
are divided too), and most interesting is the fact that this quotation is also 
given in John 12,40 where 89 manuscripts out of 158 of von Sodens K x and K r in 
total, and also some K 1 manuscripts give the subj. IASWMAI (For the sake of 
completeness should be added that the subj. IASWMAI in Acts 28,27 is supported 
by von Sodens K c and K r). When checking your own edition I feel deeply in need 
of some explanation, for in Mt 13,15 and in Acts 28,27 you give ind. IASOMAI, 
but in John 12,40 you give subj. IASWMAI.  

6) To sum up from my viewpoint: I would strongly suggest that in Lk 12,58 the 
subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) are assimilations in tense and mood to the first 
KATASURH. Together they "reflect the literary, if not the classical 
perspective", and therefor in this peculiar instance the Byzantine text has to 
be judged as secondary.  
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 10:35:27 +0100

Sorry, I erroneously used the mailbox of wilrut for my previous reply.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster