Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Future subjunctive

Expand Messages
  • Maurice Robinson
    ... (Let me insert a small but significant addendum to the data above: the reading KAUQHSWMAI of Psi and many others actually encompasses the entire
    Message 1 of 1714 , Jan 29, 1996
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Carlton Winbery wrote:

      > I would like to comment on the textual problem at I
      > Cor 12:3. I am persuaded that the original is KAUXHSWMAI supported by P46,
      > aleph, A B and others. Some scribe (perhaps in a scriptorum) heard that
      > word and wrote KAUQHSWMAI (Psi, and a many others). Another scribe saw
      > that reading and changed it to KAUQHSOMAI (C D F G L the whole latin
      > tradition and some others). The aorist deponent subjunctive with hINA
      > makes good sense here, "in order that I might boast."

      (Let me insert a small but significant addendum to the data above: the
      reading KAUQHSWMAI of Psi "and many others" actually encompasses the
      entire Byzantine/Majority tradition, and this fact should not be minimized
      in the discussion which follows).

      The problem I see with the above approach is that KAUQHSOMAI/KAUQHSWMAI is
      clearly the "more difficult" reading. Paul uses the concept of "boasting"
      almost to excess, particularly in the Corinthian correspondence. Nowhere
      else does he speak of giving one's body to be burnt, and even the
      particular locus of that reference in the immediate context is problematic.

      By applying the principle of favoring the reading most likely to give rise
      to the other(s), as well as acknowledging the reading which was most
      difficult (to the scribe), either KAUQHSWMAI or KAUQHSOMAI would be
      favored over the "easier" and "more familiar" Pauline verb KAUXHSWMAI.

      Even were dictation utilized in a scriptorium (which from my own
      examination of variants and their causes I consider to be the extremely
      rare case when speaking of NT Greek MSS), an error of hearing between the
      phonemes Chi and Theta would not be all that likely, since one is a
      gutteral and the other a labial. Yet even if phonetic confusion occurred,
      the tendency of a scribe then would be to favor what he in his own mind
      and hearing THOUGHT was a more common reading over one which would be less
      common, and especially a concept of giving one's body "to be burned," which
      would be unique to Paul.

      More problematic than either of these matters is the supposition that a
      single scribe creating a more difficult reading by an error or hearing
      would somehow produce a MS copy which then would become the mother of
      virtually all subsequent MSS. This hypothesis assumes that no
      contemporary or later scribe would ever notice the difference, let alone
      simply correct such an error by cross-comparison with another pre-existing
      exemplar.

      A major problem with modern eclecticism (whether reasoned or rigorous) is
      its failure to ignore the problems of the historical transmission of the
      text throughout history; this is one such case where attention to the
      historical possibilities of manuscript transmission weighs heavily in
      determining a conclusion.

      That an error producing a "more difficult" reading could so easily corrupt
      the mass of the MS tradition bodes ill for the certain recovery of the
      original text by any currently-recognized and responsible principles of NT
      textual criticism.

      It is also significant that the Western tradition (D F G, as well as the
      Old Latin, known to be 2nd century in origin) would have virtually
      unanimously accepted such an "difficult" erroneous reading and perpetuated
      it (though changing the apparent subjunctive to an indicative -- another
      case of moving toward an "easier" reading, but this time grammatically).
      Yet under such a hypothesis, there still remained MSS of that era (P46)
      and even two or more centuries later (Aleph A B) which still maintained
      the supposed "original" reading whereby the "difficult reading" error
      could easily have been corrected.

      Allowing the Byzantine "more difficult" reading of KAUQHSWMAI to be
      original on the other hand, everything explains itself well. The tendency
      of some scribes to gravitate to a more usual Pauline expression or
      "boasting" may have played some part, but also the grammatical issue of
      the peculiar subjunctive (?) form might on the one hand cause some scribes
      to alter -SWMAI to -SOMAI, leaving the -Q- intact and other scribes to
      seize the opportunity of presuming an error in their exemplar, and to
      correct the text from a -Q- to a -X-, with a grammatically "normal"
      KAUXHSWMAI (Middle Deponent Subjunctive) in its place -- again a
      temptation to move to the "easier" reading, both in content and in
      grammar. From this standpoint, it then is no surprise to find a SMALL
      minority of scribes reading either KAUXHSWMAI or KAUQHSOMAI as opposed to
      the 98%+ Byzantine reading of KAUQHSWMAI, which is grammatically and
      contextually "more difficult", and thus more liable to give rise to the
      remaining readings.

      The problem comes down to this: WHY -- on what reasonable grounds --
      should the vast majority of all MSS ever have perpetuated a reading which
      they knew was grammatically questionable and contextually problematic,
      assuming that a perfectly good alternative existed in variant readings
      known and perpetuated in either the Latin or Alexandrian traditions.

      It hardly seems likely that any alteration to the text of a MS which would
      produce a grammatically questionable and "more difficult" reading would
      ever be perpetuated in the vast majority of MSS. If this indeed be the
      case, the reading in question seems far more likely to be a reflection
      of the autograph text than any alteration to such.

      As an aside, I find it highly amusing that in the cross references to the
      Nestle 27 text at 1Cor.13:3, they note Daniel 3:19ff, which does NOT
      reflect their chosen text at all, but the majority KAUQHSWMAI reading *:-)
    • Julian Goldberg
      The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law, Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text with vowels and
      Message 1714 of 1714 , Feb 4, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law,
        Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text
        with vowels and cantillation marks in one complete compact black hard
        covered volume which measures 12 cm x 19 cm with over 1360 pages that
        have been arranged according to traditional chapter and verse divisions
        along with larger Hebrew letter printing and thicker paper pages for a
        volume of this size. Each book is $ 20.00 (U.S.) postpaid ($ 15.50 for
        the book plus $ 4.50 for postage) and can be ordered directly from:

        Julian Goldberg, 260 Adelaide St., E., # 215, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
        M5A 1N0.

        Thanks.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.