[B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)
Randall Buth
randallbuth at gmail.com
Tue Oct 7 19:41:19 EDT 2008
Don,
I think I agree with the principles in your post.
and you will note that I did not specify what people "heard".
Since you have specified the indicative as the easiest
reading, I will agree, and further specify that that is what I think
Paul said and Tertius wrote. Probably.
[[There is one point of difference,
in that I would also accept in principle that someone
could write the indicative with EXWMEN. That would be a
non-normalized spelling, but I don't throw it out in principle.
I'm not sure how far I am willing to go with this, though. At least
at 1 Cor 13:3 I can sleep well at night knowing that
KAYQHSWMAI does not require me to re-write the Greek
language and add a future passive subjunctive. A remarkable
number of mss have W-mega with the -QHS-. I think that
PSI, K, 69, and a host of mss, have written an indicative with
WMEGA. Non-normative spelling, but understandable
nevertheless. (And the original reading was KAYXHSWMAI,
which is an argument in stability of the tradition if this is
what caused the WMAI in the secondary readings.) ]]
but I, too, always give pause for thought when alef, A and B all
together use WMEGA in their spelling. That is why I suggested
that more study needs to be made about stability in the mss
tradition. If stability can be shown, then alef, A and B plus friends
will provide a written tradition of the YPOTAKTIKH. And I certainly
have room for Paul and Tertius being able to agree on a spelling
that could be transmitted in the manuscript tradition.
But for the time being, without knowledge of a stable enough
spelling tradition, I think that Paul intended the indicative. And I'm
not sure that the Alexandrian tradition would rule that out. But I
don't know.
And all of this does show the importance of knowing just how strong
any evidence is, and just what and where are the weak points. And
a KOINH pronunciation puts one at that spot.
So if the canyon is grand and beautiful, I trust that we will have the
proper tools for a safe landing, even crossing.
The view is quite nice from both sides,
and even camped out at the bottom (at least I thought my parachute
opened!).
Yes, a KOINH pronuncation is a part of the tool package,
though you certainly don't need to follow my personal application
of it.
blessings
Randall
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Dr. Don Wilkins <drdwilkins at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth at gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list