Bennie Crockett, Jr. asked:

>In the UBS 4th ed., an alternate reading for Jn 9.38 occurs that is
>not cited in the UBS 1st ed., UBS 3rd ed., UBS 3rd corr. ed.,
>N-A, 26th ed., and N-A, 27th ed. [I do not have the UBS 2nd ed. at hand]
>
>Although this eleventh century lectionary reading certainly is secondary,
>I am wondering _why_ the UBS editors might have chosen to include this
>variant, especially in light of the fact that it is absent from the
>editions cited above.  Dr. Metzger does not address this issue in his
>_Textual Commentary_.
>
>Also, does anyone know if this reading is included in other critical
>editions as an alternate reading?  If so, which ones?
>
>===========================================================================
=====
>Bennie R. Crockett, Jr.
>Professor of Religion and Philosophy
>Assoc. VP, Academic Programs
>William Carey College
>Hattiesburg, MS
>USA
>
>
>
Several points.

First, everyone should remember that both NA (all editions) and UBS (all
editions) are merely _pocket editions_ (in German: Handausgabe), intended to
be the equivalent of a single-volume desk dictionary, as compared with the
Oxford English unabridged (in however many volumes:  20 or more?).  It is
intended for students, for scholars to take with them to the MS rooms in the
major libraries, for use in the classroom.  Its apparatus is, therefore,
always utterly incomplete and inadequate for serious textual study of the
NT.  As a precis (or abstract) of the known variants (the fullest lists of
which are found in Tischendorf, von Soden, and the volumes of the IGNT), a
selection process has been employed.  In conversations with Barbara Aland
and others, the main lines seem to be these:  "significant" variants from
the uncials, from the minuscules and papyri, as well as lectionaries (were
available);  significant _and supporting_ (for the Gk) variants from the
versions;  and variants which are of intrinsic interest on theological or
textual grounds.

Second, in this instance (at John 9.38), I suspect that the reading was
included for two reasons.  (1) As already suggested in a post, a new
collation of the lectionary may have become available;  (2) the variant
seems to be of interest from a textual point of view, for it echoes John
11.27 and is, therefore, an example of
"harmonization"/assimilation/"transposition" (the latter not in the
technical sense of an inversion, but in the sense of taking something from
11.27 and droping it into 9.38).

Third, the variant given in UBS4, from Lectionary 253 (date 1020:  46 years
before Wm. the Conqueror...), _IS_ (in a very similar--but not
identical--form) found elsewhere, although you'd never know it from UBS or
NA.  And this very similar variant _IS_ given in an earlier edition, namely
that of von Soden, on p. 438, where it is found in MS (v.S.) Ir 1083, which,
in Gregory numbers is MS 1187.  1187 is an XI cent. MS now in St. Catherines
(Mt. Sinai);  Lectionary 253 is in St. Petersburg.  One wonders if, because
of this distinctive link between the two and their origin in the same
century, they are not privy to the same tradition, either textual or
liturgical.  It would be interesting to learn of the provenance of L-253.

Fourth, this example shows, once again, the necessity of NEVER ignoring von
Soden, Tischendorf or the IGNT.  I am constantly amazed at the haste with
which so many look at a pocket edition (NA or UBS), and then think they have
the "full picture."  Not so.  Study von Soden or Tischendorf first;  then
take your pocket edition with you.  You will then be amazed how many times
you realize, when using just these pocket editions:  "Oh, yes, but there are
lots of other variants here, and much more MS/versional support for these
readings...  Let me get all the facts together;  then I'll get back to you..."


Petersen--Penn State Univ.

Attached you will find the Aland letter I mentioned in an earlier posting.



Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI
Petros TN 37845

(Perhaps it would be of value to place this letter in its “Sitz im Leben”; While
finishing a ThM  thesis on “Explicit Quotations of Isaiah in the Gospel of John”
(which, I believe, will soon be made into a movie, with Tom Cruise playing me!
:)  ), I wrote Herrn Aland concerning his commitee’s work on the OT quotes in
the NT.  I wanted to know how they reached the decisions they did- so I wrote
and asked.  What follows was his response):


Herrn Jim West
(address)


Sehr geehrter Herr West,

verbindlichen Dan fuer Ihren Brief vom 17. Juli.  Ich antowrte Ihnen, da die
zustaendigen Mitarbeiter in Urlaub sind.  Die alttestamentlichen Zitate im
Nestle-Aland 26 sind in einem langwierigen und schwierigen Arbeitsgang
festgelegt worden.  Bekanntlich werden sie in den verschiedenen Ausgaben des
Neuen Testaments verschieden abgegrentzt.  Wir haben in zahlreichen
Arbeitssitzungen aufgrund des gesamten Materials einschliesslich des
hebraeischen Textes von Fall zu Fall je nach den verschiedenen Voraussetzungen
entscheiden.  Das war vor ueber 20 Jahren.  Ich weiss nicht einmal, ob die
umfangreiche Materialkartei im Archiv noch vorhanden ist.  Selbst wenn das der
Fall ist, ist es unmoeglich, alle dabei geltend gemachten Gesichtspunkte zu
wiederholen.  Ich kann nur sagen, dass die Abgrenzung nach unserer Meinung
sachgemaess ist.  Dass ich Ihnen nicht mehr sagen kann, tut mir leid.

Mit den besten Gruessen

Ihr

K. Aland (signature)

[long -- part 1 of 2]

On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

I'm just trying to examine a few presuppositions, in
order to see how they affect the resulting positions we take.

>> it is only a peculiarly biased viewpoint which would not
>> think the abundance of evidence would bring us closer to . . .
>> that goal.

>Abundance of evidence is certainly preferable to paucity of evidence.
>I would agree that it's possible to get closer to the original with
>more evidence, but as we approach the "100% original" limit, the
>diversity of the evidence shows us that this limit cannot really be
>reached.

I agree with this statement, worded as it is; I differ only regarding
the previous claim that, in spite of the amount of evidence we possess,
conjecture cannot be ruled out as the ultimate solution in certain
variant units.

Even within a Byzantine-priority method there still remain numerous
variant units where the external data are divided and the text
basically becomes established by internal evidence.  In those cases
(especially in the book of Revelation), no claim of 100% certainty can
be made, and I obviously do not in my own edition, nor do Hodges and
Farstad in their edition.

>> re: Hort's "primitive corruptions"
>> There seems to be a presumption of non-authenticity. . . .
>> Why not a presumption that, unless . . . inauthenticity can be
>> _proven_, the text should be considered basically "authentic" . . .

> There is no presumption of non-authenticity.  My presumption is
> non-certainty.

Your term is more precise, and I accept the semantic correction.

However, at whatever point you invoke the non-certainty principle in
favor of conjecture, non-authenticity is being proclaimed regardless.
I too have a non-certainty principle, as mentioned above, yet I rule
out conjecture altogether, due to the quantity of evidence we possess.

Under your principle, conjecture can _never_ be ruled out, and could in
theory be applied to any known variant unit where decisions or
interpretation are difficult, or even to difficult readings in places
where NO textual variation occurs at all, e.g. the "Enoch" conjecture
in 1Pet.3:19 which has been mentioned.

I simply consider it illegitimate to presume the "non-certainty"
principle as an initial factor which then allows a departure from the
evidence whenever the whim of conjecture may happen to strike the
interpreter.

Of course, neither the "Enoch" nor any other conjecture was printed as
the main text in any Greek NT edition until UBS3/N26 conjectured their
reading of Ac.16:12 -- and even this must have been embarrassing, since
some stray vulgate MSS have now been found which are cited to "justify"
that conjecture in N27 (Erasmus and the Johannine Comma incident should
not be forgotten when such occurs -- at least the Comma had some
limited _Greek_ evidence).

>Textual critics can only work with the data they have, and NT text
>critics certainly do have good data in comparison with, say,
>classical text critics, but assuming that the reading of the autograph
>has been preserved in _every_ case is quite a presumption.

If the number of extant MSS, versions, and fathers were but 10, there
would certainly be a great potential for conjecture.  If the number of
extant witnesses increased to 100, the potential would be significantly
reduced.  If statistical theory is now applied to the entire the
quantity of data we currently posses, I  doubt that any statistician
would suggest a theoretical degree of error more than about 1/10000 of
a percent.  If so, then simply rejecting conjecture as a legitimate
methodology is hardly "quite a presumption" -- note also that the issue
of "100% certainty" is _not_ being claimed merely because conjecture
has been properly ejected from the text-critical toolbox.


>If I had said that primitive corruption
>is definitely behind certain readings in our NT text, this would be a
>faith presumption.  To say that we cannot be certain that _every_
>autograph reading is preserved in one or more extant witnesses is a
>statement of caution.

The presumption of possible primitive corruption which transcends our
extant evidence is still a presupposition based on a faith (or doubt)
assumption.  There are limits beyond which caution turns into paranoia,
and I think that conjecture in the face of massive extant evidence
simply crosses that line.

> It might not even be too much to say, from a
>purely logical standpoint, that it is a statement of fact, which could
>only be disproved if we had all of the autographs.

Of course, as others have mentioned, even if we did discover them, how
would we know?  On the other hand, had the autographs been preserved
from their original era, then textual criticism would no longer be
needed.  A vicious hypothetical circle from which postulating
conjectures is the only escape? I think not.

>>Only some NT textual critics make a place for conjecture within the
>>text of the NT.  Most handbooks rule such a practice out entirely.

>I don't deny that many, maybe most (I haven't checked all of them),
>handbooks rule out conjecture; certainly all caution against its
>overuse.  But let me quote Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament_:

>   "One must admit the theoretical legitimacy of applying to the New
>    Testament a process which has so often been found essential in the
>    restoration of the right text in classical authors.

Granted in theory, but Metzger immediately counters this theoretical
presumption by appealing to the quantity of evidence which, even in
his opinion, basically rules out conjecture as a working principle for
NT textual criticism.

>    ... the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament, ...
>    is so much greater than that available for any
>    classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is
>    reduced to the smallest dimensions.

>    It is perhaps chiefly in the
>    Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, where the early manuscript
>    evidence is more limited than for any other part of the New
>    Testament, that the need for attempting conjectural emendation may
>    arise with any degree of urgency" (p. 185).

Metzger is correct that in those particular books we have less data
than in the remainder of the NT.  He still hedges with "perhaps",
however, and I would still urge that the quantity of evidence preserved
even in the Apocalypse (with around 275 MSS, a few versions, and a few
fathers) is wholly sufficient by which to establish the text without
having a need to appeal to conjecture.  Again, I would urge a
statistician to calculate the likelihood of error existing in over 300
Greek MSS of the Apocalypse with at least three competing types of text
(Andreas, Q, and Egyptian) existing.  I suspect even here about 1/1000
of a percent likelihood of error.

> Again, I am _not_
> advocating wholesale emendation of the text; I am only saying that
> emendation cannot be theoretically ruled out as a tool of the
> textual critic.

Granting the above in theory, is there any place in _practice_ where
you are convinced that all extant witnesses are corrupt and conjecture
is needed to resolve the difficulty?  Ac.16:12 of course immediately
springs to mind, since UBS3/4 and N26/27 have adopted the conjecture
there -- but is even that case necessary in your opinion?  And if so,
what other places would you maintain are hopelessly corrupt in our
extant data?

>> Further, as mentioned above, if primitive error can be suspected in _some_
>> places where variation occurs, what is there to prevent suspicion of
>> primitive error even in places where _no_ variation occurs?  There is no
>> legitimate boundary which restricts such a presupposition from being
>> applied anywhere once one does not happen to agree with or understand the
>> text.

>This is the famous "slippery slope" argument, popularly used by many
>people on all sides of many debates, but logically of no value to the
>argument.

But this is precisely what _did_ occur in the case of the "Enoch"
reading in 1Pet., and, if all the conjectures noted in the various
critical editions are listed, I will suspect that the majority of them
in fact occur in places where there is _no_ substantial textual
variation -- no "slippery slope" there; rather, a willingness to
presume "primitive error" even in places where no variant readings
exist.

>the real questions is whether other scholars will agree with their
>assessment.

Which, except for the Ac.16:12 matter, has not occurred in the printed
Greek NT editions as regards their main text.

>All in all,
>I doubt that admitting that conjecture is a legitimate tool of the NT
>textual critic will lead to a stampede of new emendations in future
>critical editions of the text.

I definitely agree with this statement; however, I still do not think
the door needs to be opened even a crack here.  There simply is too
much data with which to work.

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

[long - part 2 of 2]

On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

>Granting for the moment the assumption that text-type archetypes could be
>reconstructed (and I'm not sure that they can, except perhaps for the
>Byzantine, as Maurice said),

Clark and Colwell tried to reconstruct the Alexandrian archetype of
Mark, and gave up. The Western archetype is even more ephemeral.
However, I claimed only that _some_ form of primitive archetype could
be constructed for the leading texttypes.

Hort, following his own principles, claimed that "genealogy" would lead
us back to the archetype of the "neutral" text, which was that most
closely approaching the autograph.  Even though no one follows Hort's
patterns or method anymore, there is nothing wrong with the principle
of arguing back from the extant evidence to various primitive
archetypes and from there to the autograph -- there _had_ to be an
underlying text which gave rise to the extant data and their
hypothetical archetypes.  It therefore is not difficult to seek that
underlying "great archetype" which in fact _does_ equal the autograph.
As I said before, to do otherwise is "highly illogical, and
inconsistent with the data preserved to us in the extant witnesses."

Jimmy basically agrees on this point when he says:

>nothing I have said would prohibit the postulation of the archetype
>that lay behind the text-type archetypes.

Yet he continues:

>However, it would only be a _postulate_, not a _certainty_, and it begs
>the question to say that it would of necessity be identical with the
>autograph.

I fail to see how the question is getting begged on this point.  The
"non-certainty" principle still seems to dominate, but to what
statistical degree?  Even from an eclectic standpoint, if all three
major texttypes are agreed, there should be a high degree of certainty
that such is the autograph text.  Even where two out of three texttypes
agree, most modern eclectics would consider that a presumption of
certainty.  To me it seems peculiar continually to postulate the
"uncertainty principle" when virtually all of the text found in all
witnesses is already 100% certain, except in those 10% of places where
variation occurs.  Even if I cannot guarantee or "prove" 100% certainty
as to the autograph text in a small number of variant units, this does
not mean that I must allow the uncertainty principle to dominate the
remainder of my text-critical theory or praxis, and continually to
leave the door open for suspicion of "primitive error" or conjecture.

>by their nature, conjectures are unscientific.
>That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong, only that they rely on
>reasoned argument rather than extant textual data to make their case.

I concur that conjectures are unscientific. But if so, what place do
they have within the _science_ of textual criticism?  (Metzger's answer
was to proclaim textual criticism an "art" rather than a "science"; I
thoroughly disagree).

The "reasoned argument" approach of conjecture differs little from the
rigorous eclectic methodology practiced by Kilpatrick and Elliot.  The
latter, however, attempt first to seek out at least one witness to
support their conjecture before applying the identical "reasoned
arguments."  Since most other eclectics (Epp's "reasoned eclectics" as
opposed to the "rigorous eclectics") strongly oppose the method of
Kilpatrick and Elliott, I would expect the same degree of opposition to
conjectural emendation.

>I don't agree that every text-type can be reconstructed with 100%
>assurance, especially the Western text-type.

My position as well, including the Byzantine texttype (though to a
lesser degree of uncertainty than the Alexandrian or Western).

_Of course_ my conclusions are derived to a large extent from my
>presuppositions, as are Maurice's.  He has stated that one of his
>presuppositions is that the autographs were viewed with such high regard
>by their initial recipients that each was copied more than once (or the
>first copy was copied more than once).

This is plausible within my own theoretical outlook; however, any
theological argument concerning "high regard" of those autographs as
either scripture or canonical, let alone inspired or inerrant is _not_
necessary to support my theory, and I do not advocate that as an
essential postulate.

Allow merely that at _some_ point of time Christians or even
non-Christians considered the NT books worth perpetuating, and that at
such a time copies finally began to be copied more frequently.  My
theory still functions quite well in that scenario.

The fallacy in not assuming that (for whatever reason) the autograph
was not copied multiple times lies in the nature of scribal practice.
Unless one is prepared to assume that all single copies made from
single copies of the autograph remained error-free (which no one would
maintain), then it also is to be assumed that early errors in copies of
the autograph would continue to prevail in all or almost all MSS which
eventually descended from those single copies.

Scribally-intuitive correction might eliminate some of these errors,
but they would not eliminate most or even all of them; plus there would
be no diverging textual lines whereby cross-comparison and correction
would be able to function.

So, under the scenario of only single copies being made from the
autograph for some time, Jimmy's "primitive corruption" hypothesis
would presumably take form.  However, since in no case in the Greek NT
as we have it can any primitive corruption be demonstrated, wherein all
extant readings are totally nonsensical or misleading (including
Ac.16.12!), the presumption must be that the scribes somehow managed on
their own, without MS data, to eliminate all or almost all vestiges of
such primitive corruption.  This is highly unlikely, given the nature
of scribal textual transmission.

The alternative hypothesis is that there were in fact varying lines of
transmission which stemmed directly from the autograph which then
became the basis for cross-comparison and correction, whether used
frequently in the early "popular text" era or not.  Under the
scientific method, the best hypothesis remains that which requires the
least amount of postulates in order to be fulfilled.  In this case, the
easiest and most plausible solution is to see the autograph as the
source from which a number of copies were made, each of which were
themselves copied a varying number of times, eventually diversifying
into both the "uncontrolled popular text" MSS and the "local text" MSS
which we see emerging as texttypes by at least the end of the second
century.

>He has further indicated that one
>reason for thinking this is his "view of apostolic authority and the
>evangelistic intent of communication transcending the single recipients of
>the autograph MSS."  Fine.  I can see why he concludes that every reading
>of the autographs has been preserved.

I must again restate that my own view of canonicity, inerrancy,
inspiration, and apostolic authority does _not_ drive the theory.  The
issue is historically- and not theologically-based, and the question is
whether those living in the era of the autographs themselves considered
the works sufficiently important (for whatever reasons) to perpetuate
them, and then how to explain their perpetuation en masse in numerous
copies.  Alternate scenarios, such as Jimmy's suggestion of only one
copy being made from the autograph, and one copy from the copy, for a
given period of time can certainly be suggested; but it still devolves
down to which hypothetical scenario is more plausible, given the known
facts of history, with the expansion of the church during the first
three centuries and the known multiplication of scripture and its
differentiation into "mixed texts" and texttypes within 150 years.  I
suggest the extant data can most readily be explained by presuming
multiple copying of the autograph.  That is all.  My own theological
views do not affect this hypothesis of transmission; and even an
atheistic scholar could come to the same conclusions, even if he did
not believe the text thereby transmitted.

>I, however, am not as convinced that every NT autograph was so fortunate.
>We know that other early gospels existed, and many scholars think that
>other letters of Paul have been lost (e.g., Laodiceans, other letters to
>the Corinthians).

These works did exist, but many were not perpetuated, or exist only in
fragments such as the "Uncanonical Gospel" fragment P.Oxy.840.  Others,
like the Shepherd of Hermas, which was quite popular in the early
church, exist, but were not preserved and perpetuated as with the
canonical NT literature.  Without getting back into the argument over
canonicity, one still can argue that literature which was considered
more theologically "significant" (or "canonical" or whatever) would be
more likely to be perpetuated in large numbers than works which were
not viewed in the same manner.

>This suggests to me that _some_ works that made it into
>the NT may not have been copied as early or as frequently as others, such
>as the gospels and the major Pauline letters.

As Metzger noted, there are fewer MSS of the General Epistles and
Revelation than other NT books.  Revelation especially, since it was
not only "disputed", but also was never read in the Greek lections.
The smaller number of MSS of the General Epistles also reflect some
dispute over their canonicity as well as limited lectionary use.
Obviously the Gospels and Pauline Epistles predominated in usage and
popularity.  This did not, however, result in the remaining NT books
being excluded from ultimate canonicity.


>After all, the early
>Christians didn't have the luxury of knowing which books would ultimately
>be in the NT (this gets into the issue of the NT canon).

For which see the handbooks, whether Metzger, Bruce, von Campenhausen,
or Westcott.  I will abstain from discussing the general theory of this
aspect within a text-critical forum.

>Further evidence for this presumption is the sparsity of early
>mss of books like James and 2 Peter.  All this leads me to question
>whether the autographs of these books, or their immediate textual
>descendants, were copied more than once, or, if two or three copies were
>made, whether these lines of textual descent might not have completely died
>out without leaving a trace on the preserved ms tradition.

I do not think the sparsity of evidence in the General Epistles or
Revelation implies anything regarding the number of copies made from
the autograph.  It does reflect the popularity or frequency of use made
of those NT books within the Orthodox Church (nascent or as ultimately
developed), and even the canonical disputes concerning such books; but
I seriously doubt that any claim can be made as to how often such books
were initially copied from the autograph.  That more than one copy was
made from the autograph, I will maintain, since it is that scenario
which best explains the extant data, diversified as it is into the
various texttype alignments we currently possess.

>I'm not as certain as Maurice that all of the readings of
>the autographs have been preserved in the extant mss.  Maybe they have
>been, but I suspect that they haven't in every case.  At whichever
>conclusion the text critic arrives, presuppositions play a large role in
>his or her decision.

This is absolutely true.  My own presuppositions, however, stem from a
working hypothesis of textual transmission and a reconstructed history
of that transmission.  This is a major difference from the approach of
the modern eclectic school, and explains why I see no need for
conjecture or suspicion of "primitive error" while they (at least Jimmy
and in Ac.16.12 the N27/UBS4 editors) do.

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

On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Mark O'Brien wrote:

[addressed to Gregory J. Woodhouse]

> This is an interesting point you make, and immediately raises in my mind the
> question of how do you classify variants then?  Are all variants, in your
> opinion, inspired?  This is the tricky question for those of us who would like
> to hold to any kind of verbal inspiration or inerrancy.

Quite interesting as a hypothesis, though I would not attempt it in
practice.  Theoretically (and theologically) only the readings which
comprise the autograph should be considered "inspired"; however, I am
perfectly willing to admit the accuracy of statements in certain variant
readings, such as the seven steps in the Western text of Acts.

Even some of the non-canonical sayings of Jesus, such as those inserted
into Matt.20.28 and Lk.6:4 may be "authentic", though non-canonical and
not to be considered "inspired" as with the autograph text (the insertion
in Mk.16 in W is not considered as likely for an "authentic" saying of
Jesus, and I exclude that one).

If "authentic," though not inspired and non-canonical, such statements
nevertheless can be "inerrant", just as any historical fact could be
"inerrant" within the secular realm.  But this brings up the further
(legitimate) issue of utilizing textual criticism to illustrate and
illuminate the varying and developing views of the Christian church in
different eras, as Bart Ehrman mentioned some time back.

This line of argument also falls under the category of theology and not
textual criticism per se, so I will eschew further comment on this point.


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

I'm very new to the list. One of the hats I wear is that of a Bible
translator, and recently I discussed the issue of the Gergesenes vs.
Gadarenes vs. Gerasenes with a good friend who does archaeology
in the Holy Land. In the process he sent me a copy of Mendel Num's
new pamphlet on _The Land of the Gadarenes_. Nun seems to think
that the disciples' boat must have landed on the northeast Galilean
shore (Kursi, land of the Gergesenes), and that Matthew's Gadarenes
was a mistaken reference to the southeast shore, over which (he
argues) the Gadarenes truly did have control.
My problem of course is that I see no way to reject
Gadarenes/Gerasenes using good tc principles, so that the
temptation is to assume there must have been a territory on the
shore that was known as the land of the Gerasenes, which
overlapped that of the Gadarenes. I should add that I hold to
inerrancy, so I cannot accept Dalman's conclusions that the synoptic
writers were mistaken. Does anyone have any thoughts about this
particular problem, and about the more general problem of
reconciling biblical archaeology/geography with textual criticism? I
don't see how we could simply let current archaeological research
dictate our choices for readings in relevant passages. (By the way,
please forgive me if I happen to be covering some old ground.)

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

"kai hai adelphai sou" is omitted by a good range of Alexandrian, Byzantine
and Western (!) mss. in Mark 3:32.  It is found in a few mss of different
families (!).
So, would the participants of this forum describe this as a theological
omission, or a simple case of parablepsis?

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI
Petros TN 37845

--Boundary-18441371-0-0

>hypothetical archetypes.  It therefore is not difficult to seek that
>underlying "great archetype" which in fact _does_ equal the autograph.

Is this true? "_does_ equal" doesn't mean 100% does it?

j


--Boundary-18441371-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Sent:     04 Apr 1996 11:34:37
From:"Maurice Robinson " <owner-tc-list@...>
To: tc-list@...
Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes
Reply-to: tc-list@...
X-Orcl-Application: Mime-Version:  1.0
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Type:  TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Orcl-Application: Sender:  owner-tc-list@...
X-Orcl-Application: Precedence:  bulk



[long - part 2 of 2]

On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

>Granting for the moment the assumption that text-type archetypes could be
>reconstructed (and I'm not sure that they can, except perhaps for the
>Byzantine, as Maurice said),

Clark and Colwell tried to reconstruct the Alexandrian archetype of
Mark, and gave up. The Western archetype is even more ephemeral.
However, I claimed only that _some_ form of primitive archetype could
be constructed for the leading texttypes.

Hort, following his own principles, claimed that "genealogy" would lead
us back to the archetype of the "neutral" text, which was that most
closely approaching the autograph.  Even though no one follows Hort's
patterns or method anymore, there is nothing wrong with the principle
of arguing back from the extant evidence to various primitive
archetypes and from there to the autograph -- there _had_ to be an
underlying text which gave rise to the extant data and their
hypothetical archetypes.  It therefore is not difficult to seek that
underlying "great archetype" which in fact _does_ equal the autograph.
As I said before, to do otherwise is "highly illogical, and
inconsistent with the data preserved to us in the extant witnesses."

Jimmy basically agrees on this point when he says:

>nothing I have said would prohibit the postulation of the archetype
>that lay behind the text-type archetypes.

Yet he continues:

>However, it would only be a _postulate_, not a _certainty_, and it begs
>the question to say that it would of necessity be identical with the
>autograph.

I fail to see how the question is getting begged on this point.  The
"non-certainty" principle still seems to dominate, but to what
statistical degree?  Even from an eclectic standpoint, if all three
major texttypes are agreed, there should be a high degree of certainty
that such is the autograph text.  Even where two out of three texttypes
agree, most modern eclectics would consider that a presumption of
certainty.  To me it seems peculiar continually to postulate the
"uncertainty principle" when virtually all of the text found in all
witnesses is already 100% certain, except in those 10% of places where
variation occurs.  Even if I cannot guarantee or "prove" 100% certainty
as to the autograph text in a small number of variant units, this does
not mean that I must allow the uncertainty principle to dominate the
remainder of my text-critical theory or praxis, and continually to
leave the door open for suspicion of "primitive error" or conjecture.

>by their nature, conjectures are unscientific.
>That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong, only that they rely on
>reasoned argument rather than extant textual data to make their case.

I concur that conjectures are unscientific. But if so, what place do
they have within the _science_ of textual criticism?  (Metzger's answer
was to proclaim textual criticism an "art" rather than a "science"; I
thoroughly disagree).

The "reasoned argument" approach of conjecture differs little from the
rigorous eclectic methodology practiced by Kilpatrick and Elliot.  The
latter, however, attempt first to seek out at least one witness to
support their conjecture before applying the identical "reasoned
arguments."  Since most other eclectics (Epp's "reasoned eclectics" as
opposed to the "rigorous eclectics") strongly oppose the method of
Kilpatrick and Elliott, I would expect the same degree of opposition to
conjectural emendation.

>I don't agree that every text-type can be reconstructed with 100%
>assurance, especially the Western text-type.

My position as well, including the Byzantine texttype (though to a
lesser degree of uncertainty than the Alexandrian or Western).

_Of course_ my conclusions are derived to a large extent from my
>presuppositions, as are Maurice's.  He has stated that one of his
>presuppositions is that the autographs were viewed with such high regard
>by their initial recipients that each was copied more than once (or the
>first copy was copied more than once).

This is plausible within my own theoretical outlook; however, any
theological argument concerning "high regard" of those autographs as
either scripture or canonical, let alone inspired or inerrant is _not_
necessary to support my theory, and I do not advocate that as an
essential postulate.

Allow merely that at _some_ point of time Christians or even
non-Christians considered the NT books worth perpetuating, and that at
such a time copies finally began to be copied more frequently.  My
theory still functions quite well in that scenario.

The fallacy in not assuming that (for whatever reason) the autograph
was not copied multiple times lies in the nature of scribal practice.
Unless one is prepared to assume that all single copies made from
single copies of the autograph remained error-free (which no one would
maintain), then it also is to be assumed that early errors in copies of
the autograph would continue to prevail in all or almost all MSS which
eventually descended from those single copies.

Scribally-intuitive correction might eliminate some of these errors,
but they would not eliminate most or even all of them; plus there would
be no diverging textual lines whereby cross-comparison and correction
would be able to function.

So, under the scenario of only single copies being made from the
autograph for some time, Jimmy's "primitive corruption" hypothesis
would presumably take form.  However, since in no case in the Greek NT
as we have it can any primitive corruption be demonstrated, wherein all
extant readings are totally nonsensical or misleading (including
Ac.16.12!), the presumption must be that the scribes somehow managed on
their own, without MS data, to eliminate all or almost all vestiges of
such primitive corruption.  This is highly unlikely, given the nature
of scribal textual transmission.

The alternative hypothesis is that there were in fact varying lines of
transmission which stemmed directly from the autograph which then
became the basis for cross-comparison and correction, whether used
frequently in the early "popular text" era or not.  Under the
scientific method, the best hypothesis remains that which requires the
least amount of postulates in order to be fulfilled.  In this case, the
easiest and most plausible solution is to see the autograph as the
source from which a number of copies were made, each of which were
themselves copied a varying number of times, eventually diversifying
into both the "uncontrolled popular text" MSS and the "local text" MSS
which we see emerging as texttypes by at least the end of the second
century.

>He has further indicated that one
>reason for thinking this is his "view of apostolic authority and the
>evangelistic intent of communication transcending the single recipients of
>the autograph MSS."  Fine.  I can see why he concludes that every reading
>of the autographs has been preserved.

I must again restate that my own view of canonicity, inerrancy,
inspiration, and apostolic authority does _not_ drive the theory.  The
issue is historically- and not theologically-based, and the question is
whether those living in the era of the autographs themselves considered
the works sufficiently important (for whatever reasons) to perpetuate
them, and then how to explain their perpetuation en masse in numerous
copies.  Alternate scenarios, such as Jimmy's suggestion of only one
copy being made from the autograph, and one copy from the copy, for a
given period of time can certainly be suggested; but it still devolves
down to which hypothetical scenario is more plausible, given the known
facts of history, with the expansion of the church during the first
three centuries and the known multiplication of scripture and its
differentiation into "mixed texts" and texttypes within 150 years.  I
suggest the extant data can most readily be explained by presuming
multiple copying of the autograph.  That is all.  My own theological
views do not affect this hypothesis of transmission; and even an
atheistic scholar could come to the same conclusions, even if he did
not believe the text thereby transmitted.

>I, however, am not as convinced that every NT autograph was so fortunate.
>We know that other early gospels existed, and many scholars think that
>other letters of Paul have been lost (e.g., Laodiceans, other letters to
>the Corinthians).

These works did exist, but many were not perpetuated, or exist only in
fragments such as the "Uncanonical Gospel" fragment P.Oxy.840.  Others,
like the Shepherd of Hermas, which was quite popular in the early
church, exist, but were not preserved and perpetuated as with the
canonical NT literature.  Without getting back into the argument over
canonicity, one still can argue that literature which was considered
more theologically "significant" (or "canonical" or whatever) would be
more likely to be perpetuated in large numbers than works which were
not viewed in the same manner.

>This suggests to me that _some_ works that made it into
>the NT may not have been copied as early or as frequently as others, such
>as the gospels and the major Pauline letters.

As Metzger noted, there are fewer MSS of the General Epistles and
Revelation than other NT books.  Revelation especially, since it was
not only "disputed", but also was never read in the Greek lections.
The smaller number of MSS of the General Epistles also reflect some
dispute over their canonicity as well as limited lectionary use.
Obviously the Gospels and Pauline Epistles predominated in usage and
popularity.  This did not, however, result in the remaining NT books
being excluded from ultimate canonicity.


>After all, the early
>Christians didn't have the luxury of knowing which books would ultimately
>be in the NT (this gets into the issue of the NT canon).

For which see the handbooks, whether Metzger, Bruce, von Campenhausen,
or Westcott.  I will abstain from discussing the general theory of this
aspect within a text-critical forum.

>Further evidence for this presumption is the sparsity of early
>mss of books like James and 2 Peter.  All this leads me to question
>whether the autographs of these books, or their immediate textual
>descendants, were copied more than once, or, if two or three copies were
>made, whether these lines of textual descent might not have completely died
>out without leaving a trace on the preserved ms tradition.

I do not think the sparsity of evidence in the General Epistles or
Revelation implies anything regarding the number of copies made from
the autograph.  It does reflect the popularity or frequency of use made
of those NT books within the Orthodox Church (nascent or as ultimately
developed), and even the canonical disputes concerning such books; but
I seriously doubt that any claim can be made as to how often such books
were initially copied from the autograph.  That more than one copy was
made from the autograph, I will maintain, since it is that scenario
which best explains the extant data, diversified as it is into the
various texttype alignments we currently possess.

>I'm not as certain as Maurice that all of the readings of
>the autographs have been preserved in the extant mss.  Maybe they have
>been, but I suspect that they haven't in every case.  At whichever
>conclusion the text critic arrives, presuppositions play a large role in
>his or her decision.

This is absolutely true.  My own presuppositions, however, stem from a
working hypothesis of textual transmission and a reconstructed history
of that transmission.  This is a major difference from the approach of
the modern eclectic school, and explains why I see no need for
conjecture or suspicion of "primitive error" while they (at least Jimmy
and in Ac.16.12 the N27/UBS4 editors) do.

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


--Boundary-18441371-0-0--

[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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On April 4, Don Wilkins asked:

<snip>
>My problem of course is that I see no way to reject
>Gadarenes/Gerasenes using good tc principles, so that the
>temptation is to assume there must have been a territory on the
>shore that was known as the land of the Gerasenes, which
>overlapped that of the Gadarenes. I should add that I hold to
>inerrancy, so I cannot accept Dalman's conclusions that the synoptic
>writers were mistaken. Does anyone have any thoughts about this
>particular problem, and about the more general problem of
>reconciling biblical archaeology/geography with textual criticism? I
>don't see how we could simply let current archaeological research
>dictate our choices for readings in relevant passages.

Without getting into the various issues which you raise, which might direct
your selection in a certain direction, you might find an article by Tjitze
Baarda useful:  "Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Gergesenes and the 'Diatessaron'
Traditions".  It first appeared in _Neotestamentica et Semitica_ (FS Matthew
Black), edd. E. Ellis & M. Wilcox (Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1969), pp.
181-197;  it is reprinted in Baarda's own book of collected articles, titled
_Early Transmission of Words of Jesus.  Thomas, Tatian and the Text of the
New Testament_ (Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel/Uitgeverij, 1983), pp. 85-101.
Baarda is one of the preeminent textual critics at work today;  he is Dean
of Theology at the Free University in Amsterdam, and took his doctorate in
Semitic languages.

Petersen--Penn State University

[Long again -- Part 2 of 2]

On 1 April 96, Ulrich Schmid wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, you wrote:

[regarding 1 Cor 13.3]

>> 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.

That above quote was not mine, but a portion from Carlton, I believe.
The further comments below need to be taken with that in mind.

>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.

If my own comments are carefully read vis-a-vis that discussion, I did
not claim the Byzantine KAUQHSWMAI reading was "erroneous" in any
degree.  Nor did I claim such was in fact a "future subjunctive,"
though I did note that a small handful of Byzantine scribes thought
there was a problem there and corrected it into a "normal" future
indicative (KAUQHSOMAI).

My point there was identical to my point in Heb.3.12 -- if scribes,
when faced with a peculiar or anomalous reading in their exemplars, did
NOT significantly alter the reading, when their supposed tendency was
to do so, such a reading has every presumptive right to be considered
original, even if today we cannot understand the reading from our own
lexical or grammatical ability to analyze.

The case of DEUTEROPRWTW in Lk.6:1 stands as another example of the
same situation -- a term which no one of us can interpret with
certainty, yet a term which gave only a small number of scribes any
difficulty. The lectio difficilior principle applies there as well as
in 1Cor.13.3 and Heb.3.12 (where there is no variation at all).

However, it is NOT legitimate to argue the lectio difficilior principle
in places where the variation is not widely supported and (especially,
as in the case of Lk.12.58) where phonetic/itacistic or transpositional
readings may well be argued as the nascent cause of such minority
readings.

Griesbach's original canon of the lectio difficilior principle included
the assumption "all things being equal," and, were the MSS nearly
evenly divided over such readings, I would be the first to argue the
more difficult principle as a deciding factor.

When the more difficult reading is supported by a proportion of 9:1 or
greater, I have little hesitation in agreeing with the scribes; if the
more difficult reading is found in a small handful of MSS, I similarly
have little problem in rejecting it, as do most textual critics most of
the time, save when such appears in their favorite MSS or texttype.

>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.

Again this reverses my contention: I am comfortable with a reading
supported by nearly all MSS and scribes which reflects "normal" Koine
grammatical patterns, and see no need to adopt a reading which
(depending on the edition of Bl.-Debr. used) _may_ reflect a more
"classical" and literary approach as opposed to the usual vernacular.

I also do not claim to know a priori which reading is "the original";
my decision in favor of the Byzantine Textform came about only by a
long chain of theoretical analysis and hypothesizing, since I
previously was a dedicated partisan of the eclectic position.  The
pro-Byzantine position does not come about by fiat, but by means of
examining scribal habits and proclivities, analysis of the MS,
versional, and patristic data, and the reconstruction of a history of
textual transmission.  Any pro-Byzantine partisan who takes a simpler
route than this has not practiced text-critical research.

Since I have been within the eclectic fold, I also find it relatively
simple to understand the arguments from both sides.

>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.

I agree that word order in versions and non-Greek fathers is less
relevant.  Nevertheless, the editors of the Lk IGNTP seemed to consider
these readings indicative.  As for 1071, certainly I put little stock
in readings of a single MS, especially a late one; but 1071 is often
linked with the latin witnesses, and, when in combination with them, at
least allows a presumption regarding the displacement of words as an
impetus for phonetically-based alteration in a minority of MSS.

Of course, as you well know, transcriptional considerations do not
require MS evidence in their support, as witness Metzger's convoluted
defense of the omission of DEUTEROPRWTW in Lk.6.1 -- all of the
hypothetical intermediate transcriptional steps urged by Metzger are
wholly without manuscript support.  Q.E.D., my appeal to MS 1071 plus
the latin witnesses is even a more compelling argument.

>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.

True, all but one MS of the K1 group supports the Alex/Byz "majority"
reading.  The majority (35) of the Kx group supports the majority
reading, while a minority (15) does not (whether von Soden's 15:35
really means 15 out of 50, or something else remains unclear, since his
proportions of, e.g., 3:2 hardly refer to a total of only 5 MSS
examined). The Kr group is the only Byzantine sub-group which reads the
subjunctive in toto.  Chrysostom does likewise, of course.

I was assuming too much, and was talking in my own jargon when speaking
of "Alex" and "Byz".  My intention was that "Byz" = my own edition of
the Byzantine/Majority text (so too Hodges/Farstad); and "Alex" = the
UBS4/N27 text.  More precisely, I was only stating that the respective
Byzantine/Majority Text editions here _agree_ with the modern critical
editions (the TR reads IASWMAI).

I note also that the K1 group departs from the majority consensus in
reading EPISTREYOUSIN instead of EPISTREYWSIN; plus it has varied
support from other non-Byzantine witnesses.  Why should you not here
argue as in Lk.12.58 that this indicative likewise should be considered
"original" as opposed to the subjunctive?

>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.

Luke and John of course are different writers and may have different
styles as regards the use of a subjunctive versus indicative following
MHPOTE.  No requirement exists that either Luke or John reflect the
consensus LXX text (which you note is itself divided), so that is no
help.  However, there is no real clue to Johannine "style" on this
matter in his gospel: the only other Johannine case of a -SOMAI or
-SWMAI ending occurs in Jn.8:55 (ESOMAI), and there it is indicative
(no instances of -SOMAI or -SWMAI occur in the Johannine Epistles).

In regard to my own edition in Jn.12:40 (also in Hodges/Farstad), we
will be the first to admit that this is a judgment call, and is highly
tentative.  The Byzantine manuscript evidence is obviously divided, far
more so than in Mt.13.15.  (At least I'm glad my edition made it to
Munster *;-)

So why did we choose IASOMAI in Matt. and IASWMAI in John?  Merely
because the slight (89:69) balance of external evidence in John tips
toward IASWMAI within the Kx group.  There is _no_ other reason, and I
could as easily argue that IASOMAI might be the more likely reading in
John, based upon ESOMAI in 8:55.  However, since the author's "style"
cannot be judged from solitary examples, the slight imbalance in the Kx
evidence had to be the deciding factor.  On that particular reading,
our text may well be in error, but the extant evidence does not allow
any certain or final decision (Jimmy, please take note *;-).

Note also that the division between -W- and -O- in Jn.12:40, Mt.13.15,
and even Ac.28.27 is clearly itacistic, and not likely grammatical.  I
am not claiming that scribes in any of these places were making
grammatical changes any more than I would suggest the -O-/-W- variation
in the spelling of "Jason" in Ac.17:5,6,9 is due to any special scribal
concern with correct orthography (and the Hodges/Farstad text and my
own take opposite spellings in regard to Jason).

>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.

And I still maintain that the minority indicatives in the same passage
reflect either a transcriptional blunder or a deliberate stylistic
decision to imitate a more strictly classical style or at least the
Alexandrian equivalent of such.

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

please ignore my dumb question on my last post. I hit the wrong key.
Unless of course you want to discuss it.


jay kuhn

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:

> First, everyone should remember that both NA (all editions) and UBS (all
> editions) are merely _pocket editions_ . . . Its apparatus is, therefore,
> always utterly incomplete and inadequate for serious textual study of the
> NT. . . .

> this example shows, once again, the necessity of NEVER ignoring von
> Soden, Tischendorf or the IGNT. . . . You will then be amazed how many times
> you realize, when using just these pocket editions:  "Oh, yes, but there are
> lots of other variants here, and much more MS/versional support for these
> readings.

Mr. Petersen is absolutely correct on these points.  I try to keep my
Tischendorf and Von Soden with me as much as possible because of these
factors.

In regard to the John 9.38 reading, now that I know which one it was, I
am still somewhat surprised that UBS4 would bother including it, since it
is so obviously secondary, and reflects an "orthodox corruption" which
harmonizes to a parallel passage, plus is so limited in its support.

> (2) the variant seems to be of interest from a textual point of view,
> for it echoes John 11.27

The variant also echoes Jn.1:9, and it may have been that more familiar
passage which triggered the scribe to initiate the harmonization and to
leap ahead to the parallel in 11.27 (which may well have been known from
memory).

> it is [also] found in MS (v.S.) Ir 1083, which,
> in Gregory numbers is MS 1187.  1187 is an XI cent. MS now in St. Catherines
> (Mt. Sinai);  Lectionary 253 is in St. Petersburg.  One wonders if, because
> of this distinctive link between the two and their origin in the same
> century, they are not privy to the same tradition, either textual or
> liturgical.

I would not think this likely, but due to the nature of the phrase (being
a confessional statement), it probably ended up in both MSS as the
incorporation of a gloss from memory.  That any liturgical tradition
seriously utilized this confession as part of the lection beyond the
solitary lectionary cited and MS 1187 (which like most minuscules was
probably rubricated for lectionary use) is not very likely, given the
paucity of evidence.  I'll bet that in the churches which used those two
MSS, however, the extended confessional statement was read regularly. *;-)


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

In a message dated 96-04-04 16:56:49 EST, you write:

>reconciling biblical archaeology/geography with textual criticism?


Why do the two need to be reconciled?


Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI
Petros TN 37845

HuldrychZ@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 96-04-04 16:56:49 EST, you write:
>
> >reconciling biblical archaeology/geography with textual criticism?
>
> Why do the two need to be reconciled?
>
> Jim
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Jim West, ThD
> Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI
> Petros TN 37845

It of course depends on one's viewpoint whether there is any need
for reconciliation. If one puts little faith in traditional (if I may use
that term) textual criticism and, e.g., assumes that there is no
reason to prefer one manuscript or text tradition over another, then
archaeological/geographical evidence can be considered decisive. Or,
if one agrees that the autographs can be mistaken about such
geographical details, then contradictions are of no concern. I accept
(by faith) the accuracy of the autographs and prefer the criteria of
sound textual criticism (as stated by Metzger et al.) to the
arguments of Burgon and Hodges, so I am left with a more difficult
problem.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

Richard K. Moore wrote on 2 Apr 1996:

>What working hypothesis ought a textual critic have for any 'autograph'
>of a NT writing?  . . .   It would be surprising if there were
>absolutley no errors in any of the original compositions of the NT, and
>naturally, the possibility of error increases with the increase in
>length of a document.

The textual critic has to proceed under a double burden: the natural
process of composition and production of an "autograph" of any work,
and (in the case of the biblical books) the theological issue of divine
inspiration and whatever that may entail.  My intention is to keep
those two issues separate in the praxis of textual criticism, even
though I obviously have a faith presupposition regarding the autograph.

As I noted before, I do not desire to enter into a theological debate
on inspiration and what it may or may not entail, for the simple reason
that this will in no way help to restore an archetypical "autograph"
text.  The only point textual critics need to hold is that they are
pressing toward a goal or restoring an "autograph," whether that be an
inerrant and perfect composition, or whether that be whatever underlies
the quest for "autograph authenticity," including a document which (as
Mr. Moore suggests) may have had at least scribal errors in the
original document.  For me, there is no problem whatever in pursuing
the text-critical quest of the autograph without allowing the
theological considerations to control the nature or appearance of what
that autograph "must" look like.

>The view that the autographs themselves were completely free of
>(unintentional) errors is itself a faith statement.

Which usually is answered by the glib remark that no one has ever seen
or restored the "errant autographs" either.  *;-)  I for one have never
had a problem crop up in textual criticism which had to be resolved by
appeal to the theological argument of inspiration or inerrancy.  The
data speak well enough for themselves to allow autograph restoration
with an extremely high degree of certainty.

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

Timothy John Finney wrote on 2 Apr 1996:

>Zuntz points out in his _Disquisition on the Corpus Paulinum_ that every
>MS of Paul's letters is a collection.

Zuntz was speaking of extensive papyri and not of fragments.  P10 is a
clear example of a simple schoolboy practice scrawl on the back of a
piece of secular papyrus, with no intent to complete even the
book of Romans with which it begins.

>agreement that Paul's letters and Hebrews were in circulation as a
>collection by 100 AD.

This is now basically granted.

>When I mentioned archtype rather than autograph in my initial post, it
>was with this in mind. No one knows what happened between the original
>composition of these writings and their collection into one corpus, but
>here is a possible scenario (the usual arguments about dating etc. aside):

The historical transmission reconstruction is appreciated, even though
I differ from it significantly.

>1) 55 - 70 AD Paul's letters and Hebrews written and sent (copies may have
>been made for other churches, especially where the letter was addressed
>to one but instructions were given for it to be read in others).

Certainly, though I and most conservatives will put the dates earlier,
from about 49-64, presuming Pauline authenticity of the entire corpus
(some however excluding Hebrews, which nevertheless circulated among
that corpus).

>2) Some enterprising early believer, probably while being reprimanded for
>wasting time on trifles, decided to collect Paul's writings. Who was it?

Why could it not have been the churches themselves, exchanging
documents and slowly building up a corpus collection? Certainly
Colossians was read across the river in Laodicea, as well as a lost
Pauline letter (or Ephesians as some think) being read in Colossae.
This situation would readily be repeated as churches which had Pauline
contact would want to know what he had written to their sister
churches.

>As others have pointed out, this would most practically have been
>achieved by writing to the various letters' custodian churches asking for
>copies (aside from letters already at hand).

Such would be the case, but once more there is no reason to suspect a
single individual doing this any more than a given church writing to
another church requesting a copy of what the apostle wrote.
Economically, it would make more sense even in the era of papyrus for a
church to make copies which it then could read or circulate to its
parishoners, rather than for an individual to assemble such a
collection.  Remember Tertullian's appeal in his Prescription against
Heretics -- you are to go to the various churches to which the apostles
themselves wrote, and from there to assemble the "authenticae litterae"
in order to refute heretical corruption.  The evidence certainly seems
to point to church archives as the basis for the Pauline corpus rather
than individuals.

>3) Copies of letters not already at hand would be made (with varying
>accuracy, I dare say) and sent to the intrepid collector. This person
>then copied all of the letters into a single collection which is the
>archtype on which all subsequent copies of the Pauline collection are
>based. Where a copy of the collection was sent back to a church holding
>one of the originals, it could have been cross-checked.

I appreciate the implication that cross-checking against the autographs
could be made, though the "varying" degrees of "accuracy" in the
existing early copies would seem to suggest that this was not done on
any frequent or systematic basis.

My main argument against the single-corpus = archetype scenario is
again transmissional: if errors existed in the corpus-archetype, why do
they not exist among the extant MSS in significant quantity,
transcending the various texttype limits?  Cross-comparison and
correction can only go far enough to restore the ultimate archetype
postulated, and if that archetype is not the actual autograph copy of a
work, then error held in common by all MSS of all texttypes should
result.

I suspect that even the collected Pauline corpus was subject to
cross-comparison and correction from other freely circulating MSS which
were not part of such a corpus.  Only in this way would the initial
errors which may have affected the corpus-as-a-whole be eliminated
(unless one wanted to postulate a complete correction of the corpus
against the autograph of each of the individual letters, which I think
unlikely).

>Many implications spring from this possible scenario:

>1) The autographs are (at least) one copy distant from the archtype for all
>letters in the Pauline collection, except those that were already in the
>possession of the original collector.

Agreed that the autographs preceded the corpus archetype by
at least one generation.  However, it remains debatable whether the
corpus archetype is a single document as postulated, or whether there
were _many_ corpus-archetypes, each reflecting a slightly different
text of the collection as assembled and compared by various churches.
I opt for the latter.

>2) Production of the archtype introduced another copying step.

The same holds for multiple "corpus archetypes."

>3) Nevertheless, the collection archetype could be compared with the
>autographs whenever a copy of the collection archtype was sent to a custodian
>of an autograph.

Possible, but I suspect unlikely, since I do not see the single corpus
archetype being sent from church to church like a college yearbook to
be autographed, nor do I see the various churches which each may have
assembled their own "Pauline corpuses" circulating them in this manner,
but instead simply using them within their own local church contexts.
(This is still in the era of persecution and the uncontrolled popular
text).

>4) These primary copying steps are a possible source of the primitive
>corruptions that have been discussed by Maurice Robinson and James Adair.

I'll let Jimmy handle that one, since I don't think we have any
"primitive corruptions" which transcend all our extant evidence.

>Aspects of this theory may even be testable: if certain members of the
>collection have significantly less of what seem to be primitive
>corruptions than would be expected from the overall average then this may
>be due to those members having been copied less before incorporation into
>the archtype collection.

First problem: what are the "primitive corruptions" and how does one
authoritatively recognize them?  You cannot test a hypothesis without a
standard of comparison, and I doubt any two textual critics would agree
on a list of primitive corruptions for even Romans, let alone the
entire Pauline corpus.

The better way to test such a theory is genealogical, based upon
collation data.  Evaluation of scribal tendencies must first be
determined by examining singular readings (as did Colwell) on a
manuscript-by-manuscript basis.  Following this, one needs to search
for readings shared by only two, three, or even four MSS in order to
attempt a stemma for what appear to be closely-related MSS.  If, having
done all that, certain MSS appear to share readings in common with
great frequency, they are likely related.

If shared errors begin to transcend all or nearly all MSS of the extant
tradition, one can then and only then presuppose descent from a common
archetype of the corpus or the autograph, whichever one might prefer.
My presumption is that the result of such a test will be no errors held
in the common degree necessary to postulate the intermediate archetype
which stands between the autograph and the existing texttypes.

>(What a shame that there are no papyri which have
>the two letters to Timothy.)

There always is hope.
(I hope when such are discovered, their text will be Byzantine *;-)

>On a related matter, a couple of years ago I wrote a C program that
>simulates copying. It starts off with a row of zeroes, then introduces
>'variants' by incrementing zeroes at random with a certain (low)
>probability. There are parameters included which give the 'manuscripts'
>(i.e. rows of numbers) chances of dying of old age or by violent death.

>This is a funny program. Sometimes it seems to not work. That's because no
>copies get made because the autograph dies or is killed before it gets
>copied.

This is likely a flaw in the program based upon a faulty assumption.
If related to all documents ever written, secular, theological,
grocery lists, etc., then certainly the disappearance of the autograph
might well occur in the majority of instances.  For literary works,
however, this is not likely the case, and especially for theological
works, which intensifies with the issue of canonicity and authority
being assigned to those works.  Adjust the program to remove that
possibility, and I would be interested to see what might result.

>One outcome which I found interesting was that once a sample of the set of
>copies produced was taken, it was quite common (depending on the
>probabilities put into the program at the start) for a number besides zero
>(the original 'reading') to predominate at a particular 'variation unit'.

Did you have a parameter included which would allow for a regular or
almost regular process of cross-comparison and correction to occur,
including a proviso that when the exemplar differed from the second MS
used for correction, a third copy might be sought out in at least 50%
of the cases.  If you can reprogram with that scenario included, I
again would be interested in the results.

>Modeling of early copying might produce some clues to help us in our
>attempt to reconstruct the development of the New Testament text.

This principle is valid, which is why I urge you to rework your C
program and input different parameters to see what other possibilities
might arise.

>One phenomenon which happens in other populations is that conditions
>which adversely affect a first population but favour or don't affect a
>second, lead to a predomination of the varieties in the second
>population. On the face of it, this could explain why the Byzantine
>text became dominant after the Moslem conquest of Egypt. Whether or not
>the Egyptian or Byzantine variety is closest to the original is another
>question.

I don't think this will apply to the situation of the Moslem conquest
for reasons stated quite a while back.  Destruction of a local text
will not cause ramifications which overwhelm the dominant text, and
conversely, if the Alexandrian text were the dominant text, the Moslem
conquest would not overwhelm its continued promulgation in the
remainder of the Empire.  Removal of the influence of the Alexandrian
text elsewhere in the Empire MIGHT speed up the time necessary for the
dominance of the Byzantine Textform, but the process as a whole would
not be altered or adversely affected.

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

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@... wrote:

> "kai hai adelphai sou" is omitted by a good range of Alexandrian, Byzantine
> and Western (!) mss. in Mark 3:32.  It is found in a few mss of different
> families (!).

It is not included by a very broad range of witnesses from all texttypes.
Its inclusion (UBS3) in 2 uncials, 9 minuscules, a divided old latin
community and a few lectionaries and minor versions does not exactly
commend itself, especially when one of the uncials which include it (A) is
a normally Byzantine entity which has departed from the fold.  The second
uncial (D) is a Western entity which reflects about half of the Western
tradition, but no more.

One thing is certain: the longer reading cannot reflect harmonization to
the Matthean or Lukan parallels, since those parallels similarly omit the
mention of sisters, even within the same MSS which in Mark contain the sister
reference.

> So, would the participants of this forum describe this as a theological
> omission, or a simple case of parablepsis?

A presumptive case can indeed be made for omission of the clause "and your
sisters" by simple parablepsis aggravated by homoioteleuton. Indeed, were
the external evidence reversed, that is precisely how I would argue the
case.  However, since the vast majority of MSS (comprising the Byzantine,
Alexandrian, Caesarean and even Western texttypes) are the ones containing
the shorter text as opposed to the longer reading, I cannot use the
transcriptional argument here to suggest accidental omission.

Since no parallels occur which include the words, deliberate copying from
a parallel passage is similarly ruled out.  I can only suggest the
possibility that the addition of this clause was made for balance, in
order to make the mention of sisters coincide with Jesus' later statement
in verse 35 which includes the mention of sisters.  This is "harmonization
to the immediate context" and likely explains why no similar addition
occurs among the MSS in the Matthean parallel, the addition being
peculiar to Mark.

That the uncials A and D as well as the 9 minuscules mentioned owe their
common reading here to one or more lost archetypes seems certain.  I
suspect that those archetypes stem from the old latin, and that this type
of reading is symptomatic of the "uncontrolled popular text" of the early
centuries, which has left its sporadic traces through the centuries and
has infected a small number of surviving MSS which are otherwise more
normally Byzantine in character.

I note also that Mk's v.35 also concurs with the final statement in the
Matthean pericope, since both includes sisters.  Luke's closing statement,
on the other hand, has no mention of sisters, which agrees with his former
statement. I see no theological bias or other outside reason for the
deliberate addition of the clause in Mark; only a harmonization to the
immediate context. I do presume that the longer reading is secondary and
that the shorter reading in this situation is original; I doubt that many
eclectic critics will argue otherwise.

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

On Fri, 2 Apr 96, Ulrich Schmid wrote:

[first quoting Robinson:]

>> No other work of antiquity has such a wealth of support, and no
>> classical scholar would suggest that primitive error were likely
>> in such a situation.

>It is quite an other thing, to be sure, if one has to accept every
>single conjectural emendation, but it is simply a fact that most, if
>not all classical scholars never totally rule out the need for
>divinatio even in the New Testament.

Most classical scholars are not dabbling in NT matters; however, if any
would do so and still claim conjecture as a necessary principle, they are
carrying baggage left over from the usual paucity of documentary evidence
which prevails among the classics.  I still maintain that any responsible
classical editor, were he or she faced with an abundance of evidence for,
say, Euripides, which approached that of the NT, would suddenly shrink
back dramatically from any need for "divinatio".

>I just may give an example from Patristic literature, the so-called
>'Dialog des Adamantius PERI THS EIS QEON ORQHS PISTEWS' (author
>unknown, composed between around 330 and 363 A.D.). The text is
>conserved in 10 manuscripts stemming from 12th to 16th centuries. They
>all go back to one single heavily corrupted archetype including
>corruptions of all sorts (nonsense readings, interchange of leaves,
>etc.). . . .
>We know that the corruption goes back at least
>to 40 to 70 years after the date of composition. Looking only at the
>textual transmission of the dialogue Rufin was in no different
>situation with respect to this peculiar reading than we are today. What
>makes the difference is that we know the dialogue's source.

This in itself is quite typical of the state of classical literature, and
already begs for emendation.  There is no parallel here to the NT
situation. Ten MSS versus 5000+, along with versions and fathers, make a
world of difference in regard to what praxis should be followed in
relation to the NT data.

>Personally I would opt for extreme caution with
>respect to conjectural emendation.

So would all eclectic critics, and in practice (save for Ac.16.12 in the
current critical text) the consensus of even the eclectic critics is that
conjectural emendation has no legitimate _necessity_ in regard to the text
of the NT.  So why is this point being so strongly maintained?  Is there
some compelling reason why the "uncertainty principle" needs to be held,
even in light of the mass of evidence we possess?

>On the other hand there
>is the very crucial point that the New Testament is not just one book,
>but in fact a _collection_ of books consisting of different
>_subcollections_. With respect to this problem conjectural emendation
>is never to be ruled out.

The individual nature of the NT books is granted, but there is still no
need for conjecture even in the books with the least amount of MS support.
This also seems to be the opinion of the UBS/Nestle editors, since they do
NOT adopt any conjectures into their main text of either the General Epp.
or Revelation.  The critical edition makes a conjecture but once, and that
in Acts. So again, why is there a necessity to argue for the legitimacy
of conjecture in relation to the NT data?

>Because, what can be reconstructed as
>archetype of the textual transmission may not be identical with what
>was written down for example by Tertius (c.f. the doxology and the
>ending of Pauls letter to the Romans).

This depends upon the theory of the archetype, and whether it it is
considered to equal the autograph.

In the case of the doxology to Romans, I have no problem with placing that
doxology where it properly (and rhetorically) belongs, viz. at the end of
chapter 14; the epistle then properly (and rhetorically) ends with the
shorter doxology of 16.24 (which verse is omitted in the critical text due
to the obvious recensional activity which led to the relocation of the
doxology to that final location, Harry Gamble to the contrary).

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

It seems to me that the long ending of Mark has been virtually abandoned by
text critics.  Are there any today who still believe it to be authentic?  (I
ask because I learned today that F.D.E. Schleiermacher accepted it as
authentic!!!).


Thanks,


Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI

In an earlier posting it was mentioned that one should look at von Soden and
Tischendorf first, and then the "handbooks".  Are these still available
somewhere?  If so, where?


Thanks,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI

On April 5, Jim West asked:

>In an earlier posting it was mentioned that one should look at von Soden and
>Tischendorf first, and then the "handbooks".  Are these still available
>somewhere?  If so, where?
>

The earlier post was mine.

>From your question, it is unclear if your "these" references von Soden and
Tischendorf, or the "pocket editions" (in German "Handausgaben";  this is
the expression I used, not "handbooks"...).  By "pocket editions," I meant
any of the editions of the NT which have abbreviated apparatuses:  this
would include all editions of Nestle-Aland, all the UBS editions, Souter,
Bover, Merk, etc., etc.  These all have wretchedly incomplete
apparatuses--understadably, however, because they are the "Reader's Digest"
version of the apparatus.

One should ALWAYS consult an "editio maior"--full/large edition--of the NT,
which has a full/complete apparatus (that is, as full or as complete as
is/was available at the time of publication;  NO edition gives ALL the
evidence, for it has not yet been assembled...).  The three most useful and
complete are:

1) C. von Tischendorf, _Novum Testamentum Graece_;  the 8th edition ("editio
octava critica maior") of 1894 is the best, with the fullest apparatus and
fewest printing errors.  The _Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church_
describes it as "by reason of the abundance of its data a standard book of
reference for the text of the NT."

2) H.F. von Soden, __Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer aeltesten
erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte_ (in two
part [three volumes]).  The dates of publication vary slightly, as the first
part went through two editions (the second in 1911);  the text, in part 2,
appeared in 1913.  Of it Metzger says, "The most monumental edition of the
Greek New Testament that has appeared thus far in the twentieth century is
von Soden's [title as above]...."

3) The three parts (in four volumes) of the _New Testament in Greek_,
published by the British and American committees of the International Greek
NT Project.  Vol. 1, _Nouum Testamentum Graece_, edited by SCE Legg (Oxford
1935), was followed by Legg's edition of Matthew (Oxford 1940).  The text of
Luke appeared in two volumes (Oxford 1984 and 1987).  On the Luke volumes,
you can see my review in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_ 107 (1988),
758-762.

All of these should be available in any serious (= major) university
library;  I have them all two feet behind me in my office--within arm's
reach.  All are OP (out of print), although Tischendorf's 8th was reprinted
in Graz (?) in 1972 or so.  All are described in any handbook (_sic_!) of
textual criticism:  Metzger, etc.

One additional note:  If one is REALLY serious, one should also always check
A. Juelicher's edition of the gospels in the Vetus Latina version (4
volumes), and one of the editions of the Old Syriac gospels (F.C. Burkitt's
is probably most useful, for it combines both Syr-s and Syr-c, and offers an
English translation--which is usually pretty accurate).  The reason for this
is three-fold:  (1) UBS4 dates the two MSS of the "Old Syriac" to the
"third/fourth century" (see p. 26*).  This would make Syr-s, the older of
these MSS, the OLDEST FULL TEXT OF THE GOSPELS, antedating both Vaticanus
(B) and Sinaiticus (alaph).  (2) Even Westcott (followed by Eberhard Nestle,
Alexander Souter, FC Burkitt, Voeoebus, etc.) admitted that the combination
of _k_ [afra from the Vetus Latina] and the Old Syriac offers a text which
is superior to that of alaph+B.  (The actual quotations are all presented in
my _Tatian's Diatessaron_ [1994], pp. 20-22;  the Westcott citation is from
the second edition of the Intro to Westcott & Hort's _NT in the original
Greek_ [1896], p. 328.)  (3) Most importantly, all of the "pocket editions"
cite these versions only occasionally, not consistently.  Therefore, one can
easily be misled about the true depth and breadth of evidence by assuming
that "since they cited _d_ and _a_ and the Old Syriac two verses ago, but
not in this verse, there must not be any evidence from these versions in
this verse..."  You will be surprised what you find if you look at the
actual editions of these versions.


N.B.:  The "e"s in Juelich- and Voeoebus are the German umlaut.

Petersen--Penn State University

Jim West wrote;
>It seems to me that the long ending of Mark has been virtually abandoned by
>text critics.  Are there any today who still believe it to be authentic?  (I
>ask because I learned today that F.D.E. Schleiermacher accepted it as
>authentic!!!).
>
W.R. Farmer of SMU several years back published an article arguing for the
authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.  It's obviously conflate nature fits well
with the contention that all of Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke.
I still consider the ending to have been constructed in the second century
before the time of Tatian.

Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@...
winbery@...

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> (Ulrich Schmid wrote on 1 Apr 96)...

>> 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?

I must confess that I am a little bit confused about this
statement, because on Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> 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.

I was only quoting.

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson further wrote:

> 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).

Again, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Wihch side gives the classical
usage, and which side the more common vernacular?

>From my point of view I may suggest how the misunderstanding
possibly arose. Therefor, I would like to give the main outline
of the arguments (to be shure, from my perspective) without quoting
too much (additions, corrections, etc. are required).

1) In my initial post I judged the subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) as
assimilations to KATASURH in order to fit the classical pattern.

2) Maurice agreed with respect to the classical pattern, but
disagreed with respect to the secondary nature of the readings. He,
on the other hand, provided a scenario mainly on grammatical
grounds in order to explain the secondary nature of the Alex.
future indicatives. Referring to Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.) he judged
the Alex. readings as "reflecting common vernacular rather than
normal literary style".

3) I in the main agree with the last sentence, though I dare to
call the Alex. readings "common vernacular", simply because I do
not no know exactly to what extend Bl.-Deb. (and Maurice) are using
the terms "common vernacular". But, what I do know is the fact that
these readings do _not_ reflect classical usage. And therefor, I
judged them with respect to the lectio difficilior argument as
secondary corrections in order to fit the classical pattern.

4) I suspect that the lectio difficilior argument caused Maurice to
rethink his initial claim, for now it is the "Byzantine
text...which does NOT reflect the classical perspective, but merely
the normal vernacular...". He achieved this twist by supposing that
"the 'litterary' 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". Again, this reasoning is
dependent on Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.). But nevertheless, what was
initially labled to be "common vernacular" (i.e. Alex. indicatives)
has now turned out to be a grammatically sophisticated construction
which "(depending on the edition of Bl.-Debr. used) _may_ reflect a
more 'classical' and literary approach".

On this outline of the discussion from my perspective I would like
to comment:

a) To my mind this last claim simply implies too much sophitication
on the Alexandrian side. With this example in mind the overall
agreed reading in Heb 3,12 makes from an Alexandrian mindset no
sense at all. Note in Lk 12,58, where after MHPOTE there are three
finite verbs, the Alexandrians drew "a fine line" between the first
and the two others, and in Heb 3,12, where there is only one finite verb, they
simply failed to realize the notion of will so plainly stated.

b) The whole situation becomes even more puzzling if I may take
into account what Maurice further wrote:

> 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.

These are truely speculations, and, again, they portray the
Alexandrians with respect to the "indicative vs. subjunctive
situation" as partly hypersophisticated and partly foolish (c.f. Heb 3,12).

c) So I may leave speculation aside and return to the facts:
Final MH(POTE) is usually connected with (mainly aorist) subjunctive. This can
be called the normal, or "classical" pattern. On the other hand we have
undisputed evidence of some readings in the New Testament, which certainly do
_not_ reflect "classical" usage with respect to the grammatical features under
discussion. Maurice already mentioned two of them, Mk 14,2 (though note, some
later minuscules "correct" the fut.ind. to aor.subj.) and Heb 3,12. It is
precisely from this point of view that the argument from lectio difficilior
becomes valid. Because it is much more likely to assume that in the line of
transmission the more _unlitterary_ features are prone to "correction" than the
other way round. Note, this is only a rule of thumb, but to my mind it fits
perfectly well to the data involved in this discussion (cf. Mt 7,6; 13,15; Mk
14,2; 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. A preliminary glance at the
INA clauses seems to point in the same direction.

d) To hopefully avoid some misconception I should add that I don't
want to even the data. I shurely will not blame the Byzantine
scribes for not having "corrected" all the indicatives, nor do I
wish to propose conjectural emendation where a subjunctive might be
"desperatly required". (This I stated with referrence to Heb 3,12
only because I commented on Maurice introducing the notion of will.
I think, the overall agreed future indicative in Heb 3,12 confirms
my suggestion that the notion of will is not at work when
speculating on reasons for scribes altering the text.)

I just wished to have as many data as possible from as many manuscripts as
possible to assess grammatical features like that in order to get a
comprehensive picture of shifts in a _historical_ perspective. The data which
are up to now under discussion are in favour of my position: 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.
Note, I am open to change my mind, but not on the ground of
speculations like the above mentioned.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

[Long message -- Part 2 of 2]

>From my point of view I may suggest how the misunderstanding
possibly arose. Therefor, I would like to give the main outline
of the arguments (to be shure, from my perspective) without quoting
too much (additions, corrections, etc. are required).

1) In my initial post I judged the subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) as
assimilations to KATASURH in order to fit the classical pattern.

2) Maurice agreed with respect to the classical pattern, but
disagreed with respect to the secondary nature of the readings. He,
on the other hand, provided a scenario mainly on grammatical
grounds in order to explain the secondary nature of the Alex.
future indicatives. Referring to Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.) he judged
the Alex. readings as "reflecting common vernacular rather than
normal literary style".

3) I in the main agree with the last sentence, though I dare to
call the Alex. readings "common vernacular", simply because I do
not no know exactly to what extend Bl.-Deb. (and Maurice) are using
the terms "common vernacular". But, what I do know is the fact that
these readings do _not_ reflect classical usage. And therefor, I
judged them with respect to the lectio difficilior argument as
secondary corrections in order to fit the classical pattern.

4) I suspect that the lectio difficilior argument caused Maurice to
rethink his initial claim, for now it is the "Byzantine
text...which does NOT reflect the classical perspective, but merely
the normal vernacular...". He achieved this twist by supposing that
"the 'litterary' 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". Again, this reasoning is
dependent on Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.). But nevertheless, what was
initially labled to be "common vernacular" (i.e. Alex. indicatives)
has now turned out to be a grammatically sophisticated construction
which "(depending on the edition of Bl.-Debr. used) _may_ reflect a
more 'classical' and literary approach".

On this outline of the discussion from my perspective I would like
to comment:

a) To my mind this last claim simply implies too much sophitication
on the Alexandrian side. With this example in mind the overall
agreed reading in Heb 3,12 makes from an Alexandrian mindset no
sense at all. Note in Lk 12,58, where after MHPOTE there are three
finite verbs, the Alexandrians drew "a fine line" between the first
and the two others, and in Heb 3,12, where there is only one finite verb, they
simply failed to realize the notion of will so plainly stated.

b) The whole situation becomes even more puzzling if I may take
into account what Maurice further wrote:

> 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.

These are truely speculations, and, again, they portray the
Alexandrians with respect to the "indicative vs. subjunctive
situation" as partly hypersophisticated and partly foolish (c.f. Heb 3,12).

c) So I may leave speculation aside and return to the facts:
Final MH(POTE) is usually connected with (mainly aorist) subjunctive. This can
be called the normal, or "classical" pattern. On the other hand we have
undisputed evidence of some readings in the New Testament, which certainly do
_not_ reflect "classical" usage with respect to the grammatical features under
discussion. Maurice already mentioned two of them, Mk 14,2 (though note, some
later minuscules "correct" the fut.ind. to aor.subj.) and Heb 3,12. It is
precisely from this point of view that the argument from lectio difficilior
becomes valid. Because it is much more likely to assume that in the line of
transmission the more _unlitterary_ features are prone to "correction" than the
other way round. Note, this is only a rule of thumb, but to my mind it fits
perfectly well to the data involved in this discussion (cf. Mt 7,6; 13,15; Mk
14,2; 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. A preliminary glance at the
INA clauses seems to point in the same direction.

d) To hopefully avoid some misconception I should add that I don't
want to even the data. I shurely will not blame the Byzantine
scribes for not having "corrected" all the indicatives, nor do I
wish to propose conjectural emendation where a subjunctive might be
"desperatly required". (This I stated with referrence to Heb 3,12
only because I commented on Maurice introducing the notion of will.
I think, the overall agreed future indicative in Heb 3,12 confirms
my suggestion that the notion of will is not at work when
speculating on reasons for scribes altering the text.)

I just wished to have as many data as possible from as many manuscripts as
possible to assess grammatical features like that in order to get a
comprehensive picture of shifts in a _historical_ perspective. The data which
are up to now under discussion are in favour of my position: 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.
Note, I am open to change my mind, but not on the ground of
speculations like the above mentioned.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

On Fri, 5 Arr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

[first quoting Schmid:]

>>I just may give an example from Patristic literature, the
>>so-called 'Dialog des Adamantius PERI THS EIS QEON ORQHS PISTEWS'
>>(author unknown, composed between around 330 and 363 A.D.). The
>>text is
>>>conserved in 10 manuscripts stemming from 12th to 16th
>>centuries. They
>>all go back to one single heavily corrupted archetype including
>>corruptions of all sorts (nonsense readings, interchange of
>>leaves,
>>etc.). . . .
>>We know that the corruption goes back at least
>>to 40 to 70 years after the date of composition. Looking only at
>>the
>>textual transmission of the dialogue Rufin was in no different
>>situation with respect to this peculiar reading than we are
>>today. What
>>makes the difference is that we know the dialogue's source.

>This in itself is quite typical of the state of classical
>literature, and
>already begs for emendation.  There is no parallel here to the NT
>situation. Ten MSS versus 5000+, along with versions and fathers,
>make a world of difference in regard to what praxis should be
>followed in relation to the NT data.

May be I should have stated the parallel more clearly. In New
Testament textual transmission there is only one manuscript which
is near the mark "40 to 70 years after the date of composition" of
the New Testament writing that it testifies to, the famous P52.
This manuscript consists in its actual state of less then a quarter
of a single papyrus sheet. On the other hand, the textual
transmission of the dialogue, allthough going back to 40 to 70
years after the date of composition, already contained a fair
number of textual corruptions. The restoration of the original
reading of at least one of these corruptions would have been
virtually impossible, if we did not have access to the dialogues's
source.

I mentioned this example only to illustrate the possibility of
scribal error creeping in textual transmissions at a very early
stage, and _not_ being removable within the textual transmission
itself.

Personally, I can not see what the constant appeal to the "wealth
of support" really meens, if _only_  to indicate that the sheer
amount of data involved can be seen as the greatest challange to
editorial enterprise ever to be found on this planet. Precisely
therefor, I would opt for extreme caution with respect to
conjectural emendation. I may refer to Hort's famous statement:
KNOWLEDGE OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD PRECEDE FINAL JUDGMENT UPON READINGS.
But, looking from a theoretical perspective on the amount of data,
there is nothing within this situation that can completely rule out
conjectural emendation.

To assess the "wealth of support" notion from a slightly different
angle I may refer to what Maurice Robinson wrote on Wed, 20 Mar
1996:

[first quoting Klaus Wachtel:]

>>What about the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1, then?

> Without going into a very extended discussion here, I would
> suggest that at the time of the switch from uncial to minuscule
> (9th-10th centuries) certain key MSS were selected as archetypes
> for the primary minuscule copies. In the case of 1John, the key
> MS which was selected apparently had omitted the clauses in
> question by homoioteleuton, and the later MSS which were copied
> therefrom followed suit in the omission.

> If the minuscule archetype were copied in sufficient quantity
> during the very initial period of minuscule distribution, the
> _omission_ of those two readings would dominate and (through the
> cross-correction process) would eliminate whatever vestiges
> remained of the longer reading which had previously dominated
> transmissional history before the radical change of script.

> I.e., the cross-comparison and correcting process would work
> normally, but the minuscule would form a new "archetype" which
> would dominate the tradition from that point...

> This does not invalidate the former hypothesis, but in fact
> confirms it, given that a "new" archetype situation has come into
> existence.

A "'new' archetype situation" in fact makes our work much
easier. Because, once an archetype, or hyparchetype situation is
settled the whole bulk of MSS belonging to that part of the
transmission can be subsumed under one, or at least very few MS(S).
MSS belonging to an archetype, or hyparchetype are by defintion no
independent witnesses. They usually only testify to the textual
transmission that started with the archetype, or hyparchetype. If
in the archetype, or hyparchetype corruption occured in some
instances then the bulk of dependent MSS normally would faithfully
render the corruption (especially homoioteleuton like stuff).

I am not particulary unhappy to get the opportunity with respect to
1John 2,23, and 3,1 to reduce the amount of data in the Catholic
Epistles due to the "'new' archetype situation", though I would
rather call it a new _hyparchetype_ situation. I may give the data
as follows (c.f. _Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen
Testaments, I. Die Katholischen Briefe, Bd.1: Das Material [ed. K. Aland],
DeGruyter: 1987_ l.c.)
a) In 1John 2,23 a total of 402 MSS give the homoioteleuton
corruption (= h.c.), whereas a total of 115 MSS lack the h.c.
b) In 1John 3,1 a total of 426 MSS give the h.c., whereas a total
of 78 MSS lack the h.c.

To conclude from these data I may state that around 75 per cent of
the MSS can be subsumed under just one, or only very few leading
MS(S). This reduces the amount of data tremendously, and we are
left with around 25 per cent of the MSS which is still a lot but
not threatening at all.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

Due to some mail delivery subsystem complain I may divide my last message. I
never thought that this would happen. Sorry, but I am a real beginner in the
e-mail world.

(Long message -- Part 1 of 2)

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> (Ulrich Schmid wrote on 1 Apr 96)...

>> 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?

I must confess that I am a little bit confused about this
statement, because on Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> 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.

I was only quoting.

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson further wrote:

> 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).

Again, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Wihch side gives the classical
usage, and which side the more common vernacular?

[continued in Part 2]

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@... wrote:

> It seems to me that the long ending of Mark has been virtually abandoned by
> text critics.  Are there any today who still believe it to be authentic?  (I
> ask because I learned today that F.D.E. Schleiermacher accepted it as
> authentic!!!).

Those who favor the Byzantine Textform fully support the long ending of
Mark, and will follow the reading found among approximately 2000
continuous text Greek MSS, which reflects _all_ known texttypes as opposed
to the joint reading of _only_ Aleph, B, and the 12th century MS 304 among
Greek MS witnesses.

William Farmer also considers the longer reading to be authentic, even
though he does not favor Markan authorship for the passage.  Most
eclectics will also likely choose to include the passage, albeit in
brackets. I suspect those who consider the true ending of Mark to actually
occur at 16:8 will be in the minority among scholars today.

Many eclectics will espouse a "lost" original ending which has been
supplemented by either the longer or shorter ending, though in view of
merely three MSS which happen to omit the long ending plus a few more
which contain it with obeli, I suspect (as Colwell stated) the dead hand
of Hort still weighs heavily upon modern eclectics.

Were Aleph and B not imbued with such decisive authority, more attention
might be paid to the fact that sy-c contained the longer ending, even when
sy-s did not, and both those texts antedate Aleph and B.


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

On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 schmiul@... wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

>> leading subjunctive. Am I being misunderstood on this point?

> I must confess that I am a little bit confused about this
> statement, because on Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

>> 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.

My position _should_ have stated that, following what I read in Bl.-D., it
was the _Alexandrian_ text which followed the literary perspective, while
the Byzantine followed the normal "popular" or "normally grammatical"
framework.

>> 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).

> Again, there seems to be some misunderstanding. Wihch side gives the classical
> usage, and which side the more common vernacular?

I intend to state that the Koine of the Byztxt gives the "normal"
classical usage, in which all verbs subsumed under a subjunctive clause
remain subjunctive; this is also the "popular" usage.  The switch to
non-subjunctive verbal forms in the clause would reflect the "literary
classical" form as opposed to either the "normal" or "popular" form.  I
suspect that the error noted above or my own confused writing has caused
all this confusion;  please adjust accordingly *;-)

Let me help reconstruct the scenario also:

> 1) In my initial post I judged the subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) as
> assimilations to KATASURH in order to fit the classical pattern.
>
> 2) Maurice agreed with respect to the classical pattern, but
> disagreed with respect to the secondary nature of the readings. He,
> on the other hand, provided a scenario mainly on grammatical
> grounds in order to explain the secondary nature of the Alex.
> future indicatives. Referring to Bl.-Deb. (< 11th ed.) he judged
> the Alex. readings as "reflecting common vernacular rather than
> normal literary style".

This is the opposite of what I intended. The Alex readings would reflect
the peculiar "literary style" rather than what would normally appear in
popular Koine or in normal classical style.

> 3) I in the main agree with the last sentence, though I dare to
> call the Alex. readings "common vernacular", simply because I do
> not no know exactly to what extend Bl.-Deb. (and Maurice) are using
> the terms "common vernacular". But, what I do know is the fact that
> these readings do _not_ reflect classical usage. And therefor, I
> judged them with respect to the lectio difficilior argument as
> secondary corrections in order to fit the classical pattern.

I agree that these readings do not reflect "normal" classical usage, but
only the ephemeral "literary" usage suggested by Bl.-D.  If Bl.-D. have
later abandoned their suggestion on this point, then the variant unit
devolves into transcriptional rather than grammatical issues (which is
where I suspect it belongs in the first place).

> 4) I suspect that the lectio difficilior argument caused Maurice to
> rethink his initial claim, for now it is the "Byzantine
> text...which does NOT reflect the classical perspective, but merely
> the normal vernacular...".

Correction again, the Byz reflects the "normal vernacular" which also
coincides with the normal "classical" approach, but not with the
artificial "literary" approach.  I am not intending to twist the matters,
but I believe this stems from an initial misunderstanding of what I
intended as I cited Bl.-D., plus the error of reading "Byzantine" when it
should have been "Alexandrian." I again apologize for the confusion.  Did
I write that at 3AM?!  I think that even _I_ have to go back and re-read
my own posts! *;-)

> On this outline of the discussion from my perspective I would like
> to comment:

> a) To my mind this last claim simply implies too much sophitication
> on the Alexandrian side.

I actually consider the Alexandrian text to exhibit numerous cases of
stylistic sophistication which are not present in the Byzantine text. I
would suggest the likelihood of an Alexandrian local-text recension
(contra Fee) which proceeded more on literary than upon vernacular
grounds, and which also may have been affected by Coptic grammatical
influences.

> With this example in mind the overall
> agreed reading in Heb 3,12 makes from an Alexandrian mindset no
> sense at all.

Nor from a Byzantine mindset. So why did not one scribe alter the text
there to a subjunctive?  Simply because the text was held to be
acceptable, for whatever reasons (grammatical, theological, etc.).  If
that reading simply "cried out" for a subjunctive, some scribe at least
should have made the alteration.  Maybe a "primitive error" exists? *;-)

> Note in Lk 12,58, where after MHPOTE there are three
> finite verbs, the Alexandrians drew "a fine line" between the first
> and the two others, and in Heb 3,12, where there is only one finite verb,
> they simply failed to realize the notion of will so plainly stated.

This is again supposing that Bl.-D. are correct on the notion of will
being involved.  I do not think the "fine line" distinction in Lk can
hold, since the initial subjunctive remained such in Lk -- in Heb, what
should have been the initial subjunctive simply wasn't, and even the
Alexandrian scribes should have thought such peculiar; yet no attempts to
correct the "problem."  I suspect we know far less about how scribes
perceived points of grammar than we think.

> > 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.

> These are truely speculations, and, again, they portray the
> Alexandrians with respect to the "indicative vs. subjunctive
> situation" as partly hypersophisticated and partly foolish (c.f. Heb 3,12).

I do not see it that way at all.  Most recensional activity would be
practices on the gospels.  The disputed nature of the book of Hebrews may
have called for less activity.  However, my claim in regard to Heb.3.12
is that such _is_ "grammatical", and obviously, since it caused no
problems to scribes of _any_ textual tradition, we have to rethink some
of our notions on NT Greek grammar.  In Lk.12.58 on the other hand, if
transcriptional reasons alone do not account for the alterations (which I
think primarily the case), then there well may have been some fine points
of literary style which may have influenced the change.  I only bring up
the grammatical possibilities in an attempt to possibly explain the
reason for alteration, even though I consider transcriptional cause primary.

> c) So I may leave speculation aside and return to the facts:
> Final MH(POTE) is usually connected with (mainly aorist) subjunctive. This can
> be called the normal, or "classical" pattern.

The issue is not with the normal use of a subjunctive following MHPOTE,
but whether all remaining verbs in a subjunctive clause will remain
subjunctive as well.

> On the other hand we have
> undisputed evidence of some readings in the New Testament, which certainly do
> _not_ reflect "classical" usage with respect to the grammatical features under
> discussion. Maurice already mentioned two of them, Mk 14,2 (though note, some
> later minuscules "correct" the fut.ind. to aor.subj.) and Heb 3,12.

Once more, I do not consider either Mk.14.2 or Heb.3.12 as ungrammatical
or as not reflecting classical usage.  The scribes themselves did not so
consider, and it is erroneous for us to make those specific cases using
the irregular verb "to be" as normative for what will take place in every
case where MHPOTE appears.  I brought up those two cases only to
demonstrate that, even in the Byzantine text of the NT, there is no
scribal proclivity to alter indicatives following MHPOTE into
subjunctives, which is what Ulrich claimed occurred in Lk.12.58.

> It is
> precisely from this point of view that the argument from lectio difficilior
> becomes valid. Because it is much more likely to assume that in the line of
> transmission the more _unlitterary_ features are prone to "correction" than
the
> other way round.

But again, following Bl.-D. it appears that a peculiar _literary_ variety
of grammar is reflected in allowing remaining verbs in a subjunctive
clause to be indicatives.  Both "normal" classical and Koine vernacular
would have the verbs within the clause totally in the subjunctive (the
verb "to be" perhaps being the only exception?).

> 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.

> Note, I am open to change my mind, but not on the ground of
> speculations like the above mentioned.

Since so much of what is done in text-critical theory is speculation
(including my own hypothesis), it seems difficult to think anyone from
any text-critical school will soon change his or her mind while following
the normal patterns.

I acknowledge that my own opinion changed radically from eclecticism to
Byzantine-priority after carefully studying all the data and developing a
history of transmission which takes all known data into account.

Is there anyone out there who has come to a _modern eclectic_ position who
was not initially trained in such and accepted such from the beginning?

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

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:

> One additional note:  If one is REALLY serious, one should also always check
> A. Juelicher's edition of the gospels in the Vetus Latina version (4
> volumes), and one of the editions of the Old Syriac gospels (F.C. Burkitt's
> is probably most useful, for it combines both Syr-s and Syr-c, and offers an
> English translation--which is usually pretty accurate).  The reason for this
> is three-fold:  (1) UBS4 dates the two MSS of the "Old Syriac" to the
> "third/fourth century" (see p. 26*).  This would make Syr-s, the older of
> these MSS, the OLDEST FULL TEXT OF THE GOSPELS, antedating both Vaticanus
> (B) and Sinaiticus (alaph).  (2) Even Westcott (followed by Eberhard Nestle,
> Alexander Souter, FC Burkitt, Voeoebus, etc.) admitted that the combination
> of _k_ [afra from the Vetus Latina] and the Old Syriac offers a text which
> is superior to that of alaph+B.  (The actual quotations are all presented in
> my _Tatian's Diatessaron_ [1994], pp. 20-22;  the Westcott citation is from
> the second edition of the Intro to Westcott & Hort's _NT in the original
> Greek_ [1896], p. 328.)

In regard to assuming that sy-s + it-k or any other combination of
versions presents a superior text -- whatever happened to the principle
that the _Greek_ MSS are or should be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_
NT text?

Versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of significance, and
appeal can be made to their testimony, but such should never become
primary evidence or even suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and
quality of the Greek MS evidence we possess.


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