[B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)
Dr. Don Wilkins
drdwilkins at verizon.net
Tue Oct 7 14:06:32 EDT 2008
For what my opinion is worth, I have supported RB in principle on his
version of Koine, which involves a small leap of faith, but his leap
from that to TC and exegesis is more of a Grand Canyon leap without a
parachute. First, we cannot mind-read Tertius, nor can we know
whether he misheard Paul and subsequently asked for clarification.
Metzger wisely looked at the situation as one of possibilities, not
certainties as RB seems to be doing. Second, if Tertius relied on
context, then here and many places elsewhere in the NT we have not
the autograph but what the amanuensis thought the autograph was, and
this reduces TC to the level of speculation in such cases. In
practice, it means that the Byzantine text-type will virtually always
win out because it almost always has the easier reading based on
context. Rom. 5:1 is a good example; note, in particular, that B and
Aleph were "corrected" to the easier reading. Third, and perhaps most
significant, if we decide on such readings based entirely on context,
we are effectively deciding that what we think it should say, or what
makes the most sense to us, is what it does say. In the process,
other possibilities are too easily dismissed. Again, Rom. 5:1 is a
good example. Despite the NA preference, an interesting and important
interpretation can be derived from the subjunctive that fits the
context in a different way. This should give us pause in making a
decision and evaluating all the factors leading thereto.
I am not suggesting that variants can never be based on
mispronunciations or homophonic factors. As I noted in a previous
post, there is evidence that orthographic mistakes were made for
these reasons. But the situations we encounter in NT TC and exegesis
are significantly more complex than one might infer from RB's post.
Pronunciation certainly can be a factor to consider, as it is in the
case of Rom. 5:1, but it is hardly the only factor.
Don Wilkins
On Oct 7, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Randall Buth wrote:
> Leonard egrapse
>>> (1) Could you please expand on your statement "While there are
>>> early gains
>>> in learning spelling, the long-term consequences are that such an
>>> approach
>>> short-changes the student who wants to go further" with practical
>>> examples
>>> showing how the student is short-changed?
>>>
>>> (2) What are the benefits derived from reading the NT as it
>>> sounded? Can
>>> you provide at least two solid examples to illustrate your point?
>>>
>>> (3) Does using the assumed historical pronunciation help us to
>>> understand
>>> the message of the NT better? An example?>>
>
> kai Barry proseQhke
>> I'd also like to see these questions answered.
>
> I was impressed with Louis Sorenson's long, organizing email, and
> think that
> it would be a nice service if he could follow up on some of these.
> Leonard's first question is rightly for Louis. The last two questions
> are really
> the same question stated twice.
> Ultimately, one could even write a monograph, and I don't have the
> time to do that
> systematically on this list. I suspect that the monograph could be
> boring, too.
> Better to read the NT for oneself in the pronunciation.
>
> I will start with a well-known problem and explain how its perception
> is altered
> when looked at with a sensitivity to the original language situation,
> including its
> sounds. That will be long enough for now.
>
> Romans 5:1 in B*, alef*, A, C, D, K, L reads
> δικαιωθεντες ουν εκ πιστεως
> ειρηνην εχωμεν προς τον θεον
>
> DIKAIWQENTES OYN EK PISTEWS
> EIRHNHN EXWMEN PROS TON QEON
>
> "let us have peace with God"
>
> and equally well known
> Romans 5:1 in B(corr), alef(corr), most minuscules, UBS and
> NestleAland, reads
> δικαιωθεντες ουν εκ πιστεως
> ειρηνην εχομεν προς τον θεον
>
> DIKAIWQENTES OYN EK PISTEWS
> EIRHNHN EXOMEN PROS TON QEON
>
> "we have peace with God"
>
> Greek is good, with expected word orders of clauses and of verb phrase
> with EXEIN.
>
> Metzger's commentary ('71 edition) says "since the difference in
> pronunciation
> between ο O and ω W in the Hellenistic age was almost non-
> existent, when
> Paul dictated εχομεν EXOMEN, Tertius, his amanuensis (16:22),
> may have
> written down εχωμεν EXWMEN."
>
> First of all, "almost" might imply to an Erasmian that some
> distinction did exist,
> if Tertius was listening carefully. That of course, is false. Tertius
> would have
> relied on context for the understanding. Someone using a Koine
> pronunciation
> can better appreciate how the language was able to work, despite
> the sound
> equivalence.
> (Of course, Tertius could have queried Paul
> TO EXWMEN WS DEI HMAS H TO EXOMEN WS YPARXON HMIN?
> "...like 'we need to' ... or ... as 'existing for us'"? YPOTAKTIKH
> H ORISTIKH?
> subordinate [subjunctive] or specifying [indicative]? A query could
> have led
> to a re-wording, if serious enough.)
>
> Communication did take place, and certain principles of
> relevance theory are relevant here. Paul thought he had
> communicated, and
> Tertius thought he had understood. The audience is justified in
> drawing their
> first, most obvious understanding.
> Furthermore, with experience in communication with this language,
> one does
> not need to become pessimistic and throw up one's hands, as if all
> meaning
> is now out the window and unrecoverable.
> It is recoverable on exactly the terms that the ancient audience
> recovered
> the meaning.
> A KOINH pronunciation puts a reader in exactly that position,
> which is where we should be, neither artificially confident
> (through Erasmianism), nor artificially pessimistic
> (through an Erasminian learning that there is "no" distinction). We
> are also
> able to be more sensitive in evaluating the manuscripts on this
> issue, and
> should not be too swayed by orthographical evidence of any one
> scribe, knowing
> that a scribe could theoretically have written EXWMEN while thinking
> indicative,
> or vice versa. Again, we must fall back on context to be the guide,
> and to have
> some confidence that the context will lead to a more probable
> reading/listening,
> and that that is probably the intention of Paul. (Textcritically, the
> question of the
> stability of the orthography in any one tradition is something that
> still needs to
> be worked out. It bothered Hort no end.)
> So what does KOINH offer? Better senstivity to the issue, since it
> is something
> that a person can have some personal experience with in
> communication with
> a similar phonology where W=O.
>
> ERRWSQE
> IWANHS
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth at gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list