[B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)
Bryant J. Williams III
bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Tue Oct 7 19:57:47 EDT 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com>
To: "Dr. Don Wilkins" <drdwilkins at verizon.net>
Cc: "Louis Sorenson" <llsorenson at hotmail.com>; "Barry Hofstetter"
<nebarry at verizon.net>; "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; "Leonard
Jayawardena" <leonardj at live.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Listening to Romans 5:1 (Greek NT Audio)
> 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
> Yes, a KOINH pronuncation is a part of the tool package,
> though you certainly don't need to follow my personal application
> of it.
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Dr. Don Wilkins <drdwilkins at verizon.net>
> > 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
> 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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1712 - Release Date: 10/07/08 9:41 AM
More information about the B-Greek