[B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)
Dr. Don Wilkins
drdwilkins at verizon.net
Wed Oct 8 15:56:07 EDT 2008
Very well, Randall; I suppose this boils down to agree-to-disagree.
As far as what Tertius and others "heard", my point is that since
neither you nor I nor anyone else above ground was there at the
dictation, you are guessing what they heard. Based on your work in
koine pronunciation, it is a more intelligent guess than most, but
still a guess. And now it seems that you are trying to mind-read Paul
("I think that Paul intended the indicative").
I will give you this much: your point about the uncertainty of the
tradition is taken. I too would like to know just how stable spelling
was at that time. But you go too far, IMO. You question the validity
of the YPOTAKTIKH in the oldest and best mss, and I take it that in
your view every reading where a pronunciation issue could be raised
should be questioned. That would ultimately lead us to the late mss
with the easier readings, but why should we bother? Why not simply
make conjectural emendations based on what you feel the author
intended, given the possibility of pronunciation confusion, as in
Rom. 5:1? If the issue is valid at Rom. 5:1, why not everywhere else?
You could argue that Metzger and the committee were inconsistent in
failing to consider this. Yet at the same time you don't seem to be
entirely certain about this and all the other variants, real or
conceivable, based on pronunciation. And you're not sure whether Paul
and Tertius conferred on orthography before they sent on an inspired
document. Admittedly, none of us was there. If Tertius made a mistake
and either didn't realize it or failed to correct it, then the
autograph had a mistake affecting the YPOTAKTIKH. And evidently from
your viewpoint, it might have been Paul's mistake; what he intended
might not have been clear from what came out of his mouth. We all
make mistakes like that, so why not Paul and all the other NT
authors? Moreover, when they were not dictating but instead were
writing, they would probably make the same mistakes--some,
potentially many, affecting the meaning. Mistakes at this fundamental
level eliminate the tradition as an issue.
This is not solely your problem. You are in good company, as the TC
discussion on Rom. 5:1 reveals. But my main point is that you do not
seem ready to say that conjectural emendation based on pronunciation
confusion should prevail. If you feel that you need to wait until the
reliability--or rather the unreliability--of the tradition is
established, then you should give it some benefit of the doubt in the
meantime. You may be doing that when you say "I think Paul intended,"
or "that is what I think Paul said and Tertius wrote. Probably." In
that case I hope you mean, "I don't know with any certainty, and
there are other important factors to consider." I would like to know
what your personal appraisal of the autograph is, so that I would
have a better understanding of your position. Perhaps you could give
me an answer off-list. I would appreciate that, and rest assured that
I will keep any discussion about it off-list.
Don Wilkins
On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Randall Buth wrote:
> 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