Subject: Luke 12,58

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:29:54 -0500 (EST)

[Long again -- Part 1 of 2]

Ulrich Schmid wrote on 1 Apr 96:

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

Myself also -- Easter break is upon us.

>On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

[regarding the future tense in the Alexandrian MSS as opposed to the
subjunctive in the Byzantine MSS in Lk.12:58; most of Robinson's
discussion of Blass-Debrunner grammar sec. 369-370 omitted]

>> 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)...This construction is 
>> evidently literary and  not a part of the vernacular."

>Since I do not know exactly which edition/translation of this tool of 
>reference you are referring to, Maurice, 

My edition is that published in English around 1970-72 or so.  I don't
have it with me so cannot give the reference. It may well have been
translated from an earlier German edition.

>(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.

The opinions of grammarians certainly can change, and different
editions will reflect those changing opinions.  Grammar after all is
not a set of hard and fast rules, but an attempt to analyze usage.
Since my citing of Bl.-Debr. was to offer some possible justification
for the reading of the Alexandrian text, which departs from the more
classical model reflected in the Byzantine text, it seems that if the
"will" distinction is abandoned, then there is even less ground to
prefer the Alexandrian reading.

>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".

Not at all.  The classical use of the subjunctive occurs "if the
anxiety is directed towards warding off something still dependent on
the will" say Bl.-Debr., but this strictly applies only to the initial
KATASURH _if_ settlement is not made with the adversary.  All further
clauses remain subjunctive under normal grammatical patterns, since
they remain dependent upon the initial condition not being fulfilled
(MHPOTE).  This is classical usage and the normal grammatical pattern
one encounters in the NT.  The case is clearly conditional, and
requires the normal use of the subjunctive throughout the clauses (like
the mathematical distributive law).

On the other hand, if Bl.-Debr. are correct, the indicative found in 
the Alexandrian text is used if the scribes considered the following 
clauses to have "already taken place or is entirely independent of the 
will," which latter the scribes theoretically could have reasoned to be
the case once once has been dragged before the magistrate and an
adverse decision handed down.  If the act of the will is not in view
(according to the other Bl.-Debr. edition), then there is less
justification to favor the indicative readings over the "normal" and
classical distributive subjunctive.

>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?

I really do not know what may have motivated a small group of scribes
in any given situation, so all here is speculation.  I do suspect that
the use of the indicative here by the Alexandrian MSS may reflect a
recensional mindset aligned in some way with the classical restorations
performed in Alexandria, which mindset may well focus on peculiar items
like the indicative vs. subjunctive situation.  There may also be a
reflection as to the way Greek grammar was practiced in Egypt as
opposed to elsewhere in the Roman world; also perhaps some influence
from Coptic grammatical structure.

The situation with KATASURH is normal under all circumstances since the
subjunctive required by MHPOTE would assume potentiality.  The only
question is whether "proper" grammarians or scribes would consider the
form of the latter clauses not to be controlled by the subjunctive of
KATASURH.  The Byzantine scribes may have followed "good grammar," but
I still maintain that, had the "peculiar" forms with the indicative
been original, they similarly would have preserved the indicatives
without question.  The points of grammar under discussion here are in
my opinion far too fine for the scribal fraternity to have concerned
themselves with in any large numbers.

Hebrews 3:12 of course is by a different author, and the question of
different style and grammar must come into question.  Here, however,
there are no variants (not even in von Soden or Tischendorf).  I
presume you are not going to assume "primitive error" and propose
conjectural emendation to the subjunctive because it is so "desperately
required"; so what then?  Here is the case in point: the Byzantine-era
scribes did NOT have a tendency to correct fine points of grammar like
this, not even to the smallest degree, since there are NO corrections
to the indicative ESTAI here.  Reasoning de majorem ad minorem, it thus
is more likely that in a situation like Lk.12.58, where the abnormal
reading appears in the minority text that the minority text is that
which is non-original and the Byzantine scribes, just as in Heb.3:12,
preserved the original text unaltered.

>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.

This is twisting the Bl.-Debr. comment around: the "literary" as
opposed to the "vernacular" regards those constructions such as are
found in the Alexandrian MSS of Lk.12.58, where a fine line is drawn
between matters dependent on the will and those not dependent on such.
The Byzantine text is the one which does NOT reflect the classical
perspective, but merely the normal vernacular which subsumes all
elements of a clause under the leading subjunctive. Am I being
misunderstood on this point?

[continued in part 2]

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