[B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)

Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at verizon.net
Thu Oct 9 15:49:19 EDT 2008


I stand by my original statement. "Virtually" and "almost" allow for  
some simplification; I did not use an unqualified "always". Anyone  
who has examined textual variants at length will see my point. As for  
Rom. 5:1 in particular, it is an over-simplification to say that  
"there is no 'Byzantine reading'." The fact of the matter is that the  
Byz mss are divided. The Alexandrians are not, so the easier reading  
did not originate with them. However, I thank Tony for his  
observation, which I had overlooked. In regard to the original  
discussion about pronunciation, this distribution of text-types is  
all the more reason to be very careful, if not skeptical, when using  
pronunciation as a TC guideline. What it tells us, I think, is that  
many Byz copyists opted for the easier reading as one would expect.  
Yet despite the fact that the context seems to favor it on first  
glance, even a number of copyists who ordinarily prefer an easier  
reading were reluctant to make the change. Evidently they did not see  
the subjunctive as a simple mistake. It seems that the only other  
conclusion would be that they either passed the subjunctive along  
without thinking about it, or they too made the mistake of confusing  
omega with omicron. From a practical viewpoint, this approaches the  
complexity of deciding whether a dented chad represents the voter's  
intent, or a change of mind, or something else. We need to take at  
least as much care in evaluating variant readings as the  
commissioners in Florida did with voter cards.

Don Wilkins

On Oct 9, 2008, at 2:37 AM, Tony Pope wrote:

> Dr Don Wilkins wrote:
>
> ... 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. ...
>
> This seems to be an over-simplification. In the Romans 5:1 example,  
> the poll of all manuscripts
> available to the Münster Institute (in the Text und Textwert  
> volume) gives 56.5% reading ECOMEN and
> 43.5% reading ECWMEN. In other words, in this case there is no  
> "Byzantine reading".
>
> Another interesting example in this connection is in 1 Cor 15.49.  
> There, p46, Aleph and the majority
> of Greek MSS, followed by Westcott & Hort's text, read FORESWMEN,  
> whereas B and the minority,
> followed by the Textus Receptus and WH margin and most editions,  
> read FORESOMEN. Greek Fathers have
> been cited on both sides: Chrysostom et al for subjunctive, and  
> Theodoret et al for indicative.
>
> It seems, therefore, that some of these variations have been  
> discussion points throughout church
> history, and if one wants to know the original reading when there  
> are different interpretations due
> to hearing confusion it cannot be reliably determined by checking  
> the "oldest and best" manuscripts.
>
> Caragounis discusses in varying degrees of detail 36 cases of  
> textual variation in the NT where
> pronunciation is evidently a significant factor ("The Development  
> of Greek and the New Testament",
> chapter 8.)
>
> Tony Pope
>
> ---
> 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