Subject: 1 John 5:18

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:09:45 +0000

In 1 J 5:18 the NU reads AUTOV while MT(Byz) reads EAUTOV. Metzger says 
that "the committee understood O GEVVNQEIS to refer to Christ, and 
therefore adopted the reading AUTOV, which is supported by A* B 330 614 
it(r) vg syr(h) cop(bo) al. Copyists who took O GEVVNQEIS to refer to the 
Christian believer (although elsewhere John always uses O GEGEVVNMEVOS, 
never O GEVVNQEIS, of the believer) naturally preferred the reflexive 
EAUTOV (Aleph A(c) K P Ups 33 81 1739 al)."

Apparently (IMNeophyteO) the external witnesses are pretty even.(?) Is 
that the reason the Committee had to decide on Internal Criteria? The 
reason (internal) seems pretty good (I've not done the study yet but will 
later check it... I think we can assume that it is as they say).

In brief, What is the Byz answer to the Ecletic reasoning above? I would 
like to hear (read) Prof. M. Robinson on this (if he is not on vacation). 
I've been trying to understand the reasoning, but I need some help from 
the experienced TCers.

Thanks!

Francisco Orozco
Trinity Ministerial Academy 1991-1995
(Montville NJ USA)
[email-masked]
Nashville NC USA

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:43:57 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, [email-masked] wrote:

>Apparently (IMNeophyteO) the external witnesses are pretty even.(?)

Let's tackle this in a slightly different manner. First, let's
list all the witnesses, then classify them.

AUTON:  A* B 330 451 614 794 1505 1852 1898 2138 2412 2495 pc l t vg Jerome
EAUTON: Aleph A** K L P Psi 049 056 0142 6 33 69 81 206 323 436 623 630
876 945 1175 1241 1243 1611 1739 1881 2492 Byz arm geo Origen

Analyzing by text-types gives us:

Alexandrian              AUTON           EAUTON
  Early Alexandrian      B               Aleph
  Main Alexandrian       A*              A** 33 81 436 etc.
Family 1739              -               6 323 945 1241 1243 1739 1881
Family 2138              614 1505 2138   206 630 1611
                         2412 2495
Byzantine                -               K L 049 056 0142 pm
Misc                     330 451 latt    arm geo

Clearly EAUTON is the reading of Family 1739. It's almost equally clear
that AUTON is the reading of Family 2138 (since we frequently see members
of that family deserting it for the Byzantine text).

The Alexandrian text is another question. I am inclined to say that
its earliest form supported AUTON, but this is far from assured.

The Byzantine text, obviously, supports EAUTON.

So you're right -- the external evidence is fairly evenly divided. If
I had to pick one reading based on the external evidence, I would choose
AUTON (largely on the basis of 330-451), but the balance is so close that
even a single new witness might cause me to change my mind.

>Is 
>that the reason the Committee had to decide on Internal Criteria? 

The Committee, with its various prejudices, of course does not analyse
the data this way. But they apparently came to the same conclusion:
That external evidence, as commonly applied, cannot decide this reading.

[ ... ]

>In brief, What is the Byz answer to the Ecletic reasoning above?

I should leave this to Robinson to answer, but it seems to me that the
Byzantine answer is "EAUTON is Byzantine." :-)

As for evaluating the internal evidence -- well, I am by nature not
the best suited for that task. It's at points like this that I would
consult authorities such as Weiss or Lagrange or the UBS committee.

The difficulty of this reading is perhaps shown by the fact that
Lachmann, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bover preferred EAUTON while
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Hort, UBS chose AUTON.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:54:26 -0400 (EDT)

> On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, [email-masked] wrote:

I will respond to both Bob and Francisco from Bob's posting, since he laid
out the evidence so well, and I don't think anyone seriously would
question the external data as a whole, though some might quibble over
which MS is really of which type here.  But I can accept it as presented
without any major problem, though I will take the various statements out
of their original order for convenience of reply.

> First, let's

I would see the Alexandrian as divided, and probably leaning toward
EAUTON, since (to me, at least) a B-A* combination does not exactly an
Alexandrian archetype make, especially when Aleph A** 33 81 436 etc are on
the opposing side. 

> Byzantine answer is "EAUTON is Byzantine." :-)

Accurate as far as it goes, but far too simplistic, since it presumes
quite incorrectly that internal criteria play no part in the evaluation or
final decision.  Had the Byzantine witnesses themselves been divided here,
this would be an extremely difficult decision, since the entire passage is
already difficult of interpretation, especially falling immediately upon
the context of the "sin unto death" of vv.16-17, coupled with the
statement that "everyone begotten of God does not sin" in v.18a.  The
passage is already beset with enough difficulties regardless of which
reading is best in the 5:18 variant unit! 

Francisco noted that 

> >Metzger says 

I would not agree with Metzger's assumptions regarding what the majority
of copyists may supposedly have thought, since I consider alteration by a
minority of scribes always an easier presumption than that nearly all
scribes would make the same deliberate decision to alter the text before
them or accidentally to blunder simultaneously. 

It is quite possible that the minority of copyists (A* B 330 451 614 al.) 
may simply have omitted the "E" due to the phonetic error of hearing THREI
and HEAUTON sounded together in pronunciation (assuming as I do that the
EI diphthong was probably barely distinguishable from the HE of HEAU-
which follows).  This would offer opportunity for a phonetically-
influenced THREIAUTON to occur in written form in that minority of MSS,
without any thought of trying to determine whether the believer or Christ
is in view in the context as Metzger suggests, and I doubt that there was
much serious consideration among scribes as to how to render this word
when the whole passage is so difficult of interpretation.

I do agree with the statement that O GEGENNHMENOS is normally used by the
author of 1Jn to refer to the believer, while O GENNHQEIS will thus refer
to Christ. I do not, however, think it must necessarily follow (when the
entire context of vv.16-18 is considered) that merely because O GENNHQEIS
refers to Christ that one _must_ interpret the sentence as speaking of
Christ keeping or preserving the Christian believer and so opt for "him"
rather than "himself" (which would then refer to Christ).

The prior question of what it means to say "we know that everyone having
been begotten of God does not sin" probably has to be addressed first, and
I claim no special revelation on the interpretation of that phrase, but I
do think it likely that it implies not sinning in the sense of the "sin
unto death" described in the previous verses.  

If so, then the following statement _could_ be understood as saying that
Christ, "the one having been begotten by God", keeps or guards _himself_
(following the Byzantine reading, obviously). This then connects with the
subsequent statement that "the Evil One does not touch him" = Christ, and
not the believer per se.  This also ties in well (as I read it) with v.19,
in which "the whole world lies in the Evil One," followed by v.20, in
which the attention turns once more to Christ -- the one who "keeps
himself" in v.18, as the one who "has given to us understanding that we
might know the truth", and so combat the Evil One.

Regardless of the merits of my interpretation of the passage (and textual
critics are not always superior exegetes), my contention is that this is
not so much a deliberate alteration by the majority of scribes who for
whatever reason misunderstood the difference between O GEGENNHMENOS and O
GENNHQEIS and so chose to alter the pronoun to fit their understanding of
the passage as it is a likely accidental omission of a single letter in a
minority of witnesses, occasioned primarily by phonetic slurring and
blending of the -EI and HEAU- phonemes, merging the blended sound in such
a way as to write -EI AU- instead of the normal -EI HEAU-

> That external evidence, as commonly applied, cannot decide this reading.

Of course on the contrary, I consider the external evidence, presenting as
it does the more "difficult" reading in the majority of MSS (on the
contrary assumption that the scribes clearly understood that O GENNHQEIS
_did_ refer to Christ -- an assumption which the Committee obviously did
not consider), and also the "easier" reading on a transcriptional/phonetic
basis in the minority of MSS, as significantly decisive in regard to the
present variant unit.

> Tischendorf, Tregelles, Hort, UBS chose AUTON.

I am not surprised, given their varying rationales and external evidence
preferences.

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:32:14 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
wrote, in part:

[ ... ]

>of their original order for convenience of reply.

I don't have any particular objections to Robinson's post, either
(except, perhaps, with the conclusions :-), but I would like to
clarify a few points.

So let's start with my manuscript summary.

>Alexandrian archetype make, especially when Aleph A** 33 81 436 etc are on

I suppose I could have stated this better. My research indicates (at least)
three phases of the Alexandrian text in the Catholics. The earliest
is represented by p72 (where it exists) and B. The largest group centers
around A 33 436 (the latter slightly more Byzantine), and includes almost
all later witnesses (Psi 81 etc.) And then there is Aleph, which seems
to be closer to the A-33-436 subgroup than p72-B, but which is clearly
*not* part of that subgroup.

I agree that the Alexandrian text is split. And it's hard to tell the
history of the type here, since p72 is defective and the Coptic versions
apparently cannot testify to this reading. It would just appear that the
oldest subgroup (p72-B) had AUTON, and that the main group had
EAUTON.

[ ... ]

>final decision.

Now, now -- I wasn't speaking of your (Robinson's) answer. Merely the
unquestionable fact that the Byzantine reading is EAUTON. I was not
offering interpretation. In fact, I carefully avoided that....

[ ... ]

>basis in the minority of MSS, as significantly decisive in regard to the

Observe my phrasing: "external evidence, as commonly applied." That is,
the external evidence (as judged by most modern eclectics) is not
clear enough to allow us to choose a reading. Of course, others can
and do judge the evidence differently.... :-)

>I am not surprised, given their varying rationales and external evidence

I'm not surprised, either. I'm just pointing out that this is a very
difficult reading by the common methods of criticism. Most of the more
recent editors (Hort, von Soden, Merk, Bover), after all, produce
fairly similar texts....

**********

On a completely unrelated note:

Any of you consulting my web page will find that I have reorganized
it a bit. It doesn't contain much new information (a little, but not
much), but about ten days ago I added a large number of new entry
points. You can now find information much more easily (e.g. instead
of having to know to look in the entry on "Versions" to find out about
the Armenian version, there is now a separate entry point for "Armenian").
I hope this makes the site easier to use.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:10:19 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> My research indicates (at least)

I can basically concur with this assessment, so long as "earliest" means
only in terms of documents and not necessarily in terms of the closest to
the archetype of the Alexandrian texttype (which, given the split nature
of the Alexandrian documents here leaves the archetype question
unresolved).
 
> offering interpretation. In fact, I carefully avoided that....

Some others, however, might read those comments in much the same manner as
Fee did the "majority text" concept when he claimed that Burgon's seven
canons of criticism were merely seven ways of saying the majority is
always right.  I don't want the pro-Byzantine position to be caricatured
as merely following one preferred texttype either because the readings are
found in that texttype (which would be wholly circular), or merely because
the numerical majority happens to be of that texttype.  There certainly
are many other items of reasoning and application which bear upon a
Byzantine-priority theory.

> and do judge the evidence differently.... :-)

I of course admit that external evidence by itself solves very little if
transcriptional and internal considerations are not included in the
equation.  But I would suggest that most modern eclectics are of the
"reasoned" variety, and would concur with me on that point.  Although some
other eclectics may be "rigorous" in their application of internal
principles to the exclusion of external data (e.g. Elliott), I know of no
modern eclectic who merely follows external evidence of a given MS or
texttype wherever it might lead without taking internal and
transcriptional matters into consideration at least to some degree (that
they may apply such in what I would consider a wrong manner is irrelevant
to this point). 
 
> recent editors (Hort, von Soden, Merk, Bover), after all, produce

As I mentioned in my previous post, had the Byzantine evidence itself been
divided, this variant unit would have become even more difficult to
decide.

Since I proposed the minority reading to have arisen from the accidental
dropping of the "HE" from HEAUTON due to the phonetic blending of -EI and
HEAU- in immediate connection, let me add to the merits of that
supposition the fact that many of the same minority MSS which read AUTON
in v.18 were similarly guilty of (at least possibly so) having other
typical accidental errors of phoneme or sound-alike confusion and also
letter-dropping within close context to the EAUTON/AUTON variant unit in
question, and still produce "sensible" variant readings in the process. 
Note the following from N27: 

v.18 GENNHQEIS becomes GENNHSIS in 1505 1852 2138 latt (sy-h) bo

v.20 DEDWKEN becomes EDWKEN in A Psi 049 33 614 630 1505 2464 al

v.20 GINWSKWMEN becomes GINWSKOMEN in Aleph A B* L P 049 33 81 614 al

Notice again the support for AUTON when comparing with the above to see
how many friendly faces (6 out of 12 Greek MSS cited for AUTON) happen to
reappear sporadically in the above minority readings: 

A* B 330 451 614 794 1505 1852 1898 2138 2412 2495 pc l t vg Jerome
^  ^         ^       ^    ^         ^         

Certainly of the MSS which support the Byzantine HEAUTON reading, some of
those in support also deviate in the examples above (e.g. Aleph Psi 049 33
81 630), but from within a Byzantine-priority perspective, minority
deviations are only to be expected, and such does not impact the theory
adversely.  It is from within a modern eclectic viewpoint that the
minority deviations in vv.18 and 20 noted above will seriously impact the
weight of testimony of those same minority witnesses in favor of AUTON in
verse 18, since the evidence suggests some degree of carelessness within
the immediate context among those same MSS which witness to AUTON in
regard to phonetic variants or dropping of letters, etc.

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:40:10 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> quite incorrectly that internal criteria play no part in the evaluation or

Actually, I don't think Bob W. is making _that_ radical an assumption!  I
think all he is doing is letting the proponents of Byzantine priority
(such as yourself) speak for themselves rather than start a flame-war by
putting words in your mouth. 

> Had the Byzantine witnesses themselves been divided here,

Certainly.  This is what makes evaluating the internal evidence here
rather challenging. 

> them or accidentally to blunder simultaneously. 

But in your quote here, Metzger says nothing about the _majority_ of
scribes.  Perhaps what he really had in mind is that once the copying
error had been made, scribes presented with both choices found EAUTON much
easier to believe.  Remember, scribes were not trained in TC, so they
would take the easiest way out (consistent with their monastic obedience).
One may generally assume that they were always under a heavy workload. 

> which follows).  

I would be interested in finding out on what you base this assumption. 
They are quite distinct even in Modern Greek with its drastic iotaciztion. 
But even more relevant is the information on the phonology of Hellenistic
Greek at http://www.entmp.org/HGrk/papers/phonemics.html. 

>From this site it is clear that in the period under discussion EI was
pronounced either like the "i" in "machine" or possibly (since
pre-vocalic) almost like the "ey" in "they".  But the HE in HEAUTON was
still an E sound, as in "Edward", as it was in Classical times, and as it
still is. 

The sounds are quite distinct to my ear.  Of course, this does not rule
out the possibility that the scribes made this error, but it does show
that phonetics have only a little influence here, if any. 

Finally, in the Eastern Churches, these passages have always been chanted,
not merely read, in the Church Services.  Now although the style now used
in the East is not exactly the same, it is highly unlikely that it could
have changed so much as to allow the slurring of adjacent, distinct vowels
and diphthongs in separate words.  On the contrary, each vowel and
diphthong often gets several notes.  This must have had an influence on
how the scribe read the passage to himself when copying. 

> unto death" described in the previous verses.  

Possibly.  Another possibility I would like to hear addressed is that John
may have been thinking in Aramaic.  The verb system in Aramaic does NOT
have the notion of mood and tense of Greek, so he may have meant something
like "does not let sin abide in him" rather than "does not sin [at all]". 
But I would like to hear this addressed by someone who knows Aramaic. 

> critics are not always superior exegetes), 

This could have something to do with why TC often flip-flops on the
assessment of readings based on internal evidence.  After all, exegesis is
a large part of internal evidence, even though there are many other
important factors that must also be considered internal evidence, such as
the author's own style. 

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:06:12 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote:

> would take the easiest way out 

This type of presumption is heavily beset with difficulties once one
starts thinking in terms of transmissional history.  Assume that only one
or two early scribes changed AUTON into EAUTON.  Under "normal" 
circumstances, such a newly created reading would have little chance of
survival, given that "the easiest way out" is simply to continue to copy
what lay before them, and, if in doubt, correct any presumed errors by
consultation with at least one other MS.

Now consider the situation which you suggest (and Metzger obviously must
presume): we find one or two scribes creating what might be _thought_ by
those scribes an "easier" reading (granting the rationale given by Metzger
regarding O GENNHQEIS vs O GEGENNHMENOS).  Then, instead of these one or
two MSS in the process of time becoming corrected back to the presumed
"common" reading (= autograph reading, since no other variant is presumed
to have existed up to that point) of AUTON supposedly existing in all
known MSS of that time, those one or two altered copies suddenly become
the standard by which almost all other MSS become corrected. 

For this to occur, the one or two copies with the initial erroneous
reading would have to start getting passed around and their reading
becoming accepted by various scribes in different localities, without
getting corrected away by comparison with what already was the well-known
dominant text of those areas.  This process would have to begin slowly at
first, but with rapid multiplicity until the vast bulk of all MSS (90% or
so) become permeated with an erroneous reading which had to have been
transmitted in such an unlikely manner. 

Add to this, that for such a scenario to succeed, the HEAUTON reading also
would have to commend itself as "easier" to _all_ those scribes who
adopted it (at least to those who actually _thought_ about what they were
transcribing: but Metzger _is_ presuming that they _were_ thinking on this
point, especially in wrongly identifying O GENNHQEIS as the Christian
believer rather than Christ because of their thinking overmuch rather than
merely copying).

Now, I can accept some scenario such as that occurring on the _small_
scale; but as soon as one postulates such on the wide scale, the logic of
transmissional praxis simply does not hold up.

The opposing scenario (which I have postulated) survives Occam's Razor
much better:  the original reading being HEAUTON, a _minority_ of twelve
(12) localized Western and Alexandrian scribes dropped a single letter (E)
from the text. This was likely due to the phonetic blending of the -EI
from THREI and the HEAU- following (six of those scribes, you will recall
are involved in similar errors within close context). The majority of MSS
simply continued to preserve the original reading, and the erroneous
reading made virtually no progress towards domination or influence of the
basic MS tradition. This is only as would be expected on the basis of
normal transmissional praxis.

I see no need to unnecessarily multiply the needed attendant circumstances
regarding transmissional history in order to support a preferred reading.
The simplest explanation may well often be the best explanation, provided
intrinsic and transcriptional probability are properly considered within a
reasonable transmissional framework.

> They are quite distinct even in Modern Greek with its drastic iotaciztion. 

I do not consider modern Greek pronunciation necessarily to reflect first
century Koine (nor do I think Erasmian pronunciation is correct either). 
But a phonetic blending even in modern Greek of the -EI and EAUTON (try it
especially _without_ the rough breathing as in modern Greek!) still could
cause one to assume the E was missing from EAUTON. 

> pre-vocalic) almost like the "ey" in "they".  

I would favor the "ey" myself; but this does not affect the point. "ey"
and "heh" for -EI HE-, if the rough breathing is at all sounded minimally
will still cause the phonetic loss or near loss of the HE- from HEAUTON.

> that phonetics have only a little influence here, if any. 

The sounds are quite distinct to me also, provided one says the words
slowly enough.  If a scribe reads the words and is retaining them in his
mind between the exemplar and the copy, even as Metzger points out, many
things can happen with the sounds inside the scribe's mind.

> not merely read, in the Church Services.  

You are not suggesting that the scribes chanted the words as they read
them, are you?  I would agree that they likely voiced them, but I would
doubt chanting at the scribal desk in most cases, unless it is a favorite
liturgical passage. But also, the transmissional scenario proposed by
Metzger should easily pre-date the formal scriptorium atmosphere found in
the later Greek church, so this would not apply in regard to the origin or
early development of the variants here.

> Another possibility I would like to hear addressed is that John

The closest to the Aramaic translation patterns we have for this passage
are the Syriac versions, and they were not listed as supporting either
variant, presumably because the distinction between HEAUTON and AUTON
would be lost in Syriac or Aramaic or other Semitic languages.

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:43:23 -0700 (PDT)

Maurice Robinson wrote:

>starts thinking in terms of transmissional history.

Not so, not so.  This would be so only if we assumed that what
you refer to below as "transmissional praxis" was the only
influence on the history of the text-type.

> Assume that only one

Which could have easily happened when St. John Chrysostom brought
the Syrian text-type to Constantinople, except that it need not
be so sudden.  More likely it took place over a period of 50
years or more.  Transmissional history is not only the result of
copying errors and recensions, but also the result of preferences
for a given text type for other reasons.

>believer rather than Christ because of their thinking overmuch rather than

I am not defending Metzger's entire reasoning on this passage as
correct. In fact, Metzger seems to pass over Origen's
interpretation (PG 14:569) of this passage in silence, which is a
mistake when trying to evaluate the internal evidence.

>transmissional praxis simply does not hold up.

Again, I don't think this is what Metzger is arguing.  It is
certainly not what I am arguing.

>are involved in similar errors within close context).

Which errors are you calling similar? You listed three in another
recent posting (alas, I didn't save it), none of which I
considered similar. One of them was DEDO^KEN for EDO^KEN, one of
the others was confusing omega for omicron, which sounded
identical at that time. Why would you consider these similar?

> The majority of MSS

Yet the "new" reading took over the entire family of 1739. How could this
be if it was, as you propose, an isolated error, an error of only twelve
scribes? And how often do we see the same transcription error duplicated
in an independent witness (except for itacisms)?  From the abundance of
Byzantine readings in 1739's family it is clear that they were frequently
compared with Byzantine manuscripts.  Why was the "new" reading not
corrected? 

[snip]
>cause one to assume the E was missing from EAUTON.

Did I say that I considered modern Greek pronunciation the same as Koine?
Of course not.  But as the site I metioned showed, modern pronunciation is
closer in several respects than Erasmian or Allen's Vox Graeca.  This is
only to be expected, since it was in the process of changing from the one
to the other.  My point is that with none of these pronunciation methods
do I find your "phonetic blending" plausible. 

In fact, the rough breathing had already disappeared from "standard" Greek
before this.  It is safe to assume that it was never present in AD Koine. 
So I have tried it, even before you suggested this, and I find this
"phonetic blending" implausible. 

[snip]

>things can happen with the sounds inside the scribe's mind.

But as you quote him, he said "many", not "any".  Judging which of the
many things that might happen actually did happen is not easy.  It
certainly cannot be done by merely claiming that missing the E is: 

>phonetic error of hearing THREI

>>I would be interested in finding out on what you base this assumption.

Surely that is not an unfair question.

I still do not know on what you base this assumption, unless you base it
upon a doubtful assumption for the values of these phonemes and the
direction of elision (still backwards as in Attic, most likely) in Koine
Greek. 

Again, I do not deny that the change could have taken place.  I merely
question that these sounds were, as you claim "barely distinguishable". 

>them, are you?

No, of course not.  I did say quite distinctly:
>>these passages have always been chanted, each vowel and
  ^^^^^^^^^
>>how the scribe read the passage to himself when copying.

The influence I expect is that vowels and diphthongs do NOT get slurred
except when they are both close to the "i" in "machine", e.g., eta and
iota, iota and epsilon iota, even eta and epsilon iota, but never EI and
E, since E was never pronounced like "i". 

>I would agree that they likely voiced them, but I would

It could easily predate the scriptorium, but it very likely did NOT
predate the chanting.  So the style of pronounciation in chant would still
have influenced how the scribe sounded the syllables out. 

>would be lost in Syriac or Aramaic or other Semitic languages.

You seem to have missed the point.  I asked about the whole passage, not
about HEAUTON and AUTON, as it _might_ have existed in John's mind in
Aramaic.  I certainly did not presume that the distinction between HEAUTON
and AUTON exists in Aramaic.  But as you pointed out, which of HEAUTON and
AUTON you assume is original depends on the sense of the passage.  But the
sense of the passage in turn depends on what he means by "does not sin". 
This in turn depends on how strictly he sticks to the meaning of the tense
and mood of the Greek verb. 

Besides, it is well known that the Syriac version is a translation of the
Greek.  So arguing based on the Syriac adds yet another assumption
(farther away from Occam's Razor) that the Syriac translator understood
whether or not John really meant the verb tense to be strictly Greek, or
an approximation to the Aramaic verb form.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:57:04 -0400 (EDT)

> influence on the history of the text-type.

Despite the suggestions you make below, the likelihood of those having
more influence on what scribes would or would not do in the normal process
of transcription is very slim. It goes back to the Occam's Razor
principle once more, and the hypothesis which has to postulate the larger
number of intermediate steps, and especially when such steps require very
specialized and narrow parameters, is not as likely to be the correct
solution so long as a reasonable and relatively simple solution can
otherwise be postulated which accords with what would normally be expected
within a transmissional framework.

> the Syrian text-type to Constantinople

This is already a highly gratuitous assumption, and in fact becomes part
of a circular assumption regarding the development of the Byzantine
Textform as becoming popular because Chrysostom endorsed it, though he
would have no reason to endorse it unless it were popular, etc.

But are you _seriously_ suggesting that Chrysostom brought one or two
copies of 1 John to Constantinople which _happened_ to have a Byzantine
text, or at least a Byzantine reading in 1 Jn.5:18, and that, by mere
force of personality, those who listened to his "golden-mouthed" sermons
latched on to the clear exegetical distinction at the point of AUTON
versus HEAUTON because the exegetical explanation of Chrysostom that the 
O GENNHQEIS referred to the Christian believer and not to Christ and thus
the pronoun had to be altered was so convincing?  

And because of this that the local traditionalist scribes and even the
clergy of Constantinople were speedily ready to jettison the AUTON reading
which supposedly had held sway in that region for 300 years?  Also that
from that point the reading would spread like wildfire and within 50
years, as you suggest, nearly _every_ known MS would be corrected to read
HEAUTON and nearly all future MSS would do the same?  Is this _really_ a
convincing explanation of the history of this variant unit?  I think not;
get me Occam, or at least get me Chrysostom's commentary/homilies on 1
John to establish even a modicum of possibility for this point.....After
that we can speculate on what influence Chrysostom's favored text might
continue to have when he was discredited and sent off into exile...

> except that it need not

Certainly, but the other reasons have to be plausible within some
reasonable transmissional framework, and I for one simply do not see such
in this case.  Multiplying hypothetical possibilities in regard to
Chrysostom here does little or nothing to explain matters, but only makes
the entire situation far more complex for historical reasonableness to
accept.  My solution requires no such complications, and remains
historically and transmissionally/transcriptionally reasonable.
 
> mistake when trying to evaluate the internal evidence.

Yet it is perhaps ok to postulate on Chrysostom's supposed interpretation
of the passage and how he directly influenced the spread of his "favorite" 
local text from Syria and to make that the basis for a transmissional
hypothesis? 
 
> certainly not what I am arguing.

What then are you saying in regard to the Chrysostom hypothesis? Even that
scenario would have to commend itself as historically and transmissionally/
transcriptionally reasonable.  What I really suspect is that once more
those who might hold to an eclectic text position are placed in the awkward
position of having to deal with transmissional considerations which by
definition should not be a factor in true "eclectic" methodology. 

As I have said before, were the situation reversed, and it was I who
claimed a hypothetical multiplicity of coincidences to explain the rise
and dominance of the Byzantine Textform, I suspect I would be roundly
criticized by everyone on this list for so doing; yet this is basically
what happens repeatedly in eclectic explanations intended to defend
minority readings as soon as they attempt to account for the rise and
dominance of the reading of the Byzantine Textform. Yet in most of those
cases, the Byzantine reading can easily be defended as original without
the need to engage in such mental gymnastics. 

> identical at that time. Why would you consider these similar?

Similar in the sense of scribal proclivities to phonetic error and the
dropping of an individual letter.  The DEDWKEN/EDWKEN is the latter; the
other cases were the phonetic similarity of GENNHSIS to GENNHQEIS and the
GINWSKOMEN/GINWSKWMEN interchange.  The fact that 6 out of the 12 MSS
which read AUTON in v.18 engage in at least one of those other two errors
within close context clearly makes the likelihood of error in the case of
AUTON a strong possibility.  The variants are all different, but they are
related directly to the problem due to the phonetic similarity issue and
the dropping of a single letter issue.

> scribes? 

The last I recall, Fam.1739 was not the majority of MSS, and the entire
Fam.1739 evidence is _part_ of those twelve scribes being counted.  An
isolated family group simply possesses elements in common which have been
perpetuated in a very limited degree among the descendants of a common
archetype.  This has no more bearing on my transmissional explanation of
the Byzantine reading here than the fact that the _larger_ texttype groups
of Alexandrian and Western MSS might differ from the majority reading. If
you want to reduce the count from 12 scribes to 9 or so be considering the
Fam.1739 to be a unit like Fam.1 or Fam.13, I am perfectly willing to
accept that.....but then the perpetuation of the minority reading is even
further reduced. 

> And how often do we see the same transcription error duplicated
> in an independent witness (except for itacisms)?  

Simply collate a good number of MSS over a given portion of text and you
will find far more than itacisms being duplicated independently.  The
DEDWKEN/EDWKEN type of variation is quite common, and generally betrays no
genealogical connection. So also the KAI/DE type of interchange, or items
like EBALLON/EBALON etc.  The variants might remain sensible and
meaningful by such errors, but their existence among MSS of diverse
families and texttypes does not imply genealogical connection.

> From the abundance of

No one (including myself) is claiming that EVERY reading from the
correction exemplar used by a diorthotes would be implemented into the
finished copy at one time.  Correction would be haphazard and sporadic in
most cases, and this is in fact what we see even in the most pure
Byzantine MSS. So it is no surprise to find the same thing occurring in
MSS which are less Byzantine; there may be more corrections to a Byzantine
standard found in such MSS, but nothing suggests that every non-Byzantine
reading in any MS would ever be corrected at one sitting.  I suspect that
generally the diorthotes would read a newly copied MS and, so long as the
text "made sense" or was in accord with what he recalled from memory,
would _not_ consult the correction exemplar.  Only when the diorthotes
perceived a problem might he choose to verify such against a second
exemplar. 

> do I find your "phonetic blending" plausible. 

Give me any suggested pronunciation of the -EI diphthong and the HEAU-
sound, and I see a relatively simple phonetic blending by almost any
vocalization within normal reading speed. The only exception would be if
the words were clearly sounded separately and distinctly so as to
emphasize the break between the words.
 
> before this.  It is safe to assume that it was never present in AD Koine. 

Very peculiar then how the MSS, even as early as P66, felt a need to
identify the rough breathing.  I do not consider this line of argument
very strong.

> "phonetic blending" implausible. 

I find it extremely plausible, and having continually to tell Greek
students to enunciate more clearly without blending letters so as to cause
similar problems, I see no reason why some early scribes would not also
have a similar problem, especially if Greek might not be their native
language.

> many things that might happen actually did happen is not easy.  

Actually I don't recall precisely _what_ Metzger said, since I am only
alluding to him on this point. For all practical purposes, however, "any"
would be a proper term to describe what might fit within the limits of
"many" in this situation, primarily because none of us can get into the
mind of a scribe as he or she copies.

> question that these sounds were, as you claim "barely distinguishable". 

I see no reason to question why, when spoken rapidly in close connection,
regardless of the phonemic pronunciation, that such blending could not
cause the HE- of HEAUTON to drop out.  Even with the grossly artificial
Erasmian "I" sound (eye) for the -EI diphthong (which I doubt was ever used
by anyone in the early centuries) the THREI (tey-rI) HEAUTON combination
could _still_ lead someone to mis-hear and understand AUTON instead of
HEAUTON.  If your mileage varies on that point, well and good, but I will
not belabor the pronunciation point regarding this variant further in this
forum. 

> E, since E was never pronounced like "i". 

What is a diphthong itself, if not already a slurring/blending of two
vowels?  Why is there any problem in supposing a diphthong itself could be
slurred/blended with another following vowel?
 
> sense of the passage in turn depends on what he means by "does not sin". 

But then this devolves back to the larger question of how O GENNHQEIS
would have been intended and understood and all of that as well.  So that
takes everything back to the issue of exegesis of the passage once more.
My own suspicion is that even though John may have thought semitically
(whether in Aramaic or Hebrew), he still wrote his gospel and epistles in
Greek, and may have had the assistance of a stylist or ameneuensis who
would polish up the finished product.  The Greek of 1 John is what we
have, and I suspect it is useless to speculate behind that to what John
may or may not have been thinking in Aramaic.

> an approximation to the Aramaic verb form. 

Agreed, this is really getting far from Occam, and is probably useless
speculation regarding interpretative intent of an ancient translator or
translators.  I'll skip that part of the discussion, thank you. :-)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:23:11 -0400 (EDT)

I wrote in response to Matthew Johnson without thinking to go over the
evidence, and ended up speaking erroneously off the top of my head in
regard to the wrong family group. Johnson wrote:

>> Yet the "new" reading took over the entire family of 1739. How could
>>this be if it was, as you propose, an isolated error, an error of only
>>twelve scribes?

I responded:

>Fam.1739 evidence is _part_ of those twelve scribes being counted.

[snip]

Mea culpa....I did _not_ intend to speak of Fam.1739 as part of those 12
MSS which differ from the majority reading. Fam.1739 here agrees with the
Byzantine reading. 

I was thinking of the MSS of Fam.2138 which depart from the majority and
read AUTON (there actually are 5 such MSS).  If those 5 MSS were
considered only to reflect the family archetype, then the total number of
witnesses in favor of AUTON would be reduced to 12-5 = 7. 

The remainder of my discussion in my last post should be taken with this
in mind, and, _mutatis mutandis_, should be dealing with Fam.2138 in the
same context.  

However, I am therefore no longer certain I am addressing Johnson's
comments, assuming he indeed was speaking of Fam.1739 and not Fam.2138 in
his post -- If so, I confess I don't know _what_ he is referring to in his
statement quoted above, since the Byzantine reading in my opinion did
_not_ "take over" Fam.1739 at that point, nor did the Byzantine Textform
as a whole "take over" that family or any family, as mentioned elsewhere
in that post, else there would not be any "family" readings, but only the
readings of the Byzantine text. 

My view in regard to Fam.1739 (not Fam.2138) at the 1 Jn.5:!8 reading is
that the archetype of Fam.1739 simply read HEAUTON, and the AUTON reading
was _never_ characteristic of that family at that variant unit. (I think
Bob Waltz will agree with me on this).  The same _cannot_ be said for the
archetype of Fam.2138, which appears to have read AUTON, but of which
reading 3 members (206 630 1611) _were_ corrected over to the Byzantine
standard during the process of transmission.