Subject: Luke 12,58

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:20:36 -0400 (EDT)

On 9 Apr 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote:

[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...

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

Obviously so, and my fingers, which were not coordinated with my mind,
accept all blame.

>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.

This is granted; the issue under discussion was _not_ addressed by
Kilpatrick.  I cited Kilpatrick only as an example of one case where it
is maintained that the Byzantine text maintains a "normal" and
"earlier" Koine and does not follow the later revival of Attic
classical style whereas the Alexandrian text does.

>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 ...

        [quote omitted, but passages discussed below]

>Note, in two out of three instances in Ephesians the _Byzantine text_
>seems to display a tendency "mistakenly to introduce an optative".

I suspect the optative is original and reflects an earlier usage and
not a later one which would be adopted by Byzantine scribes in a period
when the fading optative would be more likely to be replaced by a more
current form of expression.  I.e., my contention is merely that the
Byzantine MSS preserve a more ancient form of text in those optatives,
a form which goes back to the original.

Despite Kilpatrick's grammatically-based argument, I believe 
that Eph.1.17, 3.16, and 4.29 can more readily be explained
transcriptionally without requiring grammar to be a primary
consideration:

E.g. in 1.17, the majority DWH is followed by UMIN.  The final -H could
have dropped out due to the blending of sequential vowels which were
pronounced similarly (as in modern Greek where no distinction remains
between H and U). The net result of such phonetic error could easily
be the minority DW reading.

In 3.16 (not in N27, but in Von Soden) we again find the majority DWH
followed by UMIN, where the same phenomenon may have repeated itself,
and thus DW might appear in a minority of MSS.

(It is peculiar that N27 reads DWH in 1.17 and provides variants, but
leaves DW without notice of variant in 3.16, even though there the
evidence is far more divided)

In 4.29 (also not in N27), the fluctuation between the majority DWi,
and the Western DOI is probably merely itacistic, and does not really
reflect a problem with the optative.

Now, one might also suggest that transcriptional probability might cut
both ways, and that an original DWi UMIN could phonetically be expanded
into DWH UMIN.  This is less likely, since to do so would require the
H/U sound not only to be phonetically held longer, but also to be
differentiated as parts of two separate words by the scribes.  It is
far easier to presume a phonetic blending and shortening of similar
sounds which would result in a single letter dropping out of the text,
but still producing a grammatically "correct" reading.

One further note which might be of significance regarding the first two
examples: since the iota subscript would not likely be written adscript
in most papyri and uncials, without the iota subscript, the Optative
DWiH otherwise looks like the alternate subjunctive form DWHi which
is functionally equivalent to DWi.  The potential for grammatical
confusion due to alternative form considerations needs also to be taken
into account, though I still prefer to suspect phonetic considerations 
as the root cause of the variants.

>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.

And we still obviously differ in our interpretation of the evidence;
but this is only to be expected.

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