Mon Apr 8 11:54:31 1996
From majordom Mon Apr 8 11:54:31 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA11047; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:54:31 +0500
Message-Id: <199604081551.LAA05516@r02n05.cac.psu.edu>
X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 11:51:30 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen)
Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k
Content-Length: 6049
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On April 6, 1996, Maurice Robinson responded to my post of 5 April by stating:
>In regard to assuming that sy-s + it-k or any other combination of
>versions presents a superior text -- whatever happened to the principle
>that the _Greek_ MSS are or should be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_
>NT text?
>
>Versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of significance, and
>appeal can be made to their testimony, but such should never become
>primary evidence or even suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and
>quality of the Greek MS evidence we possess.
>
It appears that Robinson has a preset view of how things are ("should never
become primary evidence or even suggested to be such"); I never say never,
for I am far too ignorant. In passing I would note that, against Robinson,
one finds arrayed the names I listed in the 5 April post: Westcott, Eb.
Nestle, Souter, Burkitt, C.H. Turner, A. Voeoebus. Such a list is not
exactly bad company.... But of course, one should be concerned with
evidence, not who supports what position....
Robinson also gives his reason as to why one should not turn to the
versions; it is because of the "quantity and quality of the Greek MS
evidence we possess." But numbers mean little, as we all know: two copies
are made from an archetype, one with an error, and the other without the
error. From the copy with the error, a thousand copies are made; from the
copy without the error, no copies are made. Of what use are numbers? See
Paul Maas on the issue. As to "quality," that, of course, is a judgement
call, upon which few will agree. I agree that there is "quality" in the
Greek tradition: look at Justin, Clement of Al., etc., if you want early
Greek citations....
Robinson asks "whatever happened to the principle that the _Greek_ MSS are
or should be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_ NT text?" Answer:
Nothing--except in those cases, here and there, where the versions may
preserve an ancient reading. Souter put it thus in an article on Hebrews
10.29 in _The Expositor_ 23 (1922), p. 135: "...there is a salutary lesson
for all those who neglect the early versions. _A reading may be right, even
if no single extant Greek MS. contains it_" (Souter's italics). Whether
Souter is correct in this instance from Heb. 10.29 or not is not the issue;
the issue is whether, as a principle, he _could_ be right. I would always
like to consider the evidence--_all_ the evidence--before making up my
mind.... Of course, if one _begins_ with the _a priori_ assumption that the
versions "never" (to quote Robinson) can preserve a reading anterior to the
extant Greek witnesses, then all this is irrelevant.
The logic behind paying attention to the versions (and the Fathers...) turns
not only on issues of weighing individual readings, but also on the _dates_
of their origin. If our oldest full Greek MS of the NT is alaph, dating
from about 350, it must be pointed out (as I already have...) that UBS4
dates the two Vetus Syra MSS to the "third/fourth century" (p. 26*). That
means they ANTEDATE alaph. Even if one takes the traditional dating of
Syr-s as fourth cent., then it is co-equal with alaph in date. In the Vetus
Latina, Codex Vercellinsis (_a_) is dated to the fourth cent., also a date
co-equal with alaph. Then the question arises: from what Greek base were
these versions translated? Only one answer can be admitted: from a Greek
exemplar OLDER than they are, i.e., from the early fourth or late third cent.
I close with three examples:
(1) at Jn. 4.27, the Greek reads "kai epi toutwi"; the 4th cent.+ Syr-c[s]p
reads instead "and while they were speaking", as does Vetus Latina MS _r1_
(7th cent.): "et in hoc sermone". I pass no judgement on originality, but
note that this reading must have existed in a Greek MS before the 4th cent.,
although none preserves it now.
(2) at Jn. 13.9, Vetus Latina MS _a_ (4th cent.) interpolates post "caput"
"+ et totum corpus". The same interpolation is found in both Oriental as
well as Western witnesses to the Diatessaron of Tatian (composed c. 170).
Now, while I have no position on baptism by immersion or by affusion
(sprinkling), there is evidence here in the non-Greek MS tradition that, at
one time, "and the whole body" (= immersion?) was in a Greek MS before the
fourth cent., and possibily as early as the middle of the second century (=
Tatian's source).
(3) at Mk. 12.14, the Greek reads "kenson" ("tribute/tax"). This is the
usual Greek word. However, Greek Bezae (05, D; 5th cent.), Koridethi (038,
theta; 9th cent.), and MS 565 (9th cent.) read, in Greek
"epikephalaion"--"on [the] head", another word for "tax", given in BAG as
"poll tax", only in the NT here, and in these MSS. Hmmm. Then there is MS
_k_ in the Vetus Latina (4th [!!] or 5th cent.) which reads--against all the
other Latins (which read "tributum")-- "capitularium" ("caput" is
"head"...). And then there is the Old Syriac Syr-s[c]p which read (in
Syriac) "kespha de-resha", or, literally, "money of the head". Gee. This
is a Semitism... And we know it is from the 4th cent., at the _latest_,
because of Syr-s. And it has survived in _later_ Greek MSS, but is _also_
present in a 4th cent. _Latin_ (!!) MS as well. So the Greek exemplar from
which it came must have been from the 3rd cent. And here, in this instance,
I _would_ argue that the main Greek tradition has been "cleaned up," with
the idiomatic Greek word ("kenson") being substituted for the more ancient
Semitism ("epikephalaion"). But this only becomes apparent when one looks
at the versions--and beyond the abbreviated and inconsistently-cited
apparatus of NA/UBS.
The text of the NT becomes significantly more complex if one takes seriously
the evidence of the Fathers and the versions. Note the rhetoric against
them ("never", etc.). Because I know so little, and am so ignorant, I
perfer to be guided by the evidence, not by rhetoric. Collect the evidence
first, THEN come to conclusions.
Petersen--Penn State University
Back