Subject: Luke 12,58

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 17:48:34 +0100

On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

[quoting Schmid, quoting Robinson]

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

>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...
> I think that even _I_ have to go back and re-read my own posts.

So happily the _source variant_ of the misunderstanding is identified which set 
off a chain reaction of misunderstandings.

Maurice Robinson further wrote:

[quoting Schmid]

>> 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.

>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. 

The referrence to Kilpattrick's article on Atticism in the Greek NT is totally 
misleading here. Note, I referred to "the grammatical features under 
discussion", i.e. MH(POTE) + subj. vs ind., and to the "INA clauses" with the 
same variation. Kilpattrick did _not_ deal with this particular features in his 
article.

Nevertheless, Kilpattrick reviewed in his article (inter alia) the use of the 
optative. Since his reasoning on the optative subject can be paralleld with my 
own reasoning on the MH(POTE) + subj. vs ind. subject, I may quote Kilpattrick 
(c.f. _Neutestamentliche Aufsaetze. Festschrift Josef Schmid, Regensburg 1963_, 
p. 135): "In Ephesians there is fluctuation at these passages between DWI, DWH 
and DOI (i.17 DWI B 1739 Cyr, DWH cet., iii.16 DWI P46 aleph ABCFG,DWH DKLP psi, 
iv.29 DWI P46 aleph AB(K)LP, DOI D*FG). All these forms occur in hINA clauses 
and it is extremely unlikely that the writers intended an optative in any of 
them. This being so DWI seems to be the original reading and the variants to 
this may be attempts mistakenly to introduce an optative."

Note, in two out of three instances in Ephesians the _Byzantine text_ seems to 
display a tendency "mistakenly to introduce an optative".
Therefor, my own reasoning on the MH(POTE) + sub. vs ind. subject
(cf. Mt 7,6; 13,15; Mk14,2; 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", 
not only still holds water, but is paralled by an other strikingly compelling 
"classical" feature of the Byzantine text.

Note, I do _not_ blame the Byzantine tradition for _not_ having altered every 
single reading where the subj. vs ind. and/or optative subjects are involved. I 
only try to assemble as many data as possible in order to get a most 
comprehensive picture. And, the data assembled up to now point to the conclusion 
I drew thereof.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster