Mon Apr 8 14:40:04 1996

From majordom  Mon Apr  8 14:40:04 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA12065; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:40:04 +0500
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:37:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 13552
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


On April 8, 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:

[quoting Robinson]

>> 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

Robinson's view may be "definite" and even "rigid," but it did not come
about as a mere _a priori_ notion.  His view as quoted above reflects a
definite conclusion consistent with what most textual critics long have
held when considering the relationship between versional and patristic
testimony as opposed to that of the Greek MSS, even though others may
freely disagree.

I certainly utilize(and would be expected to utilize) my own principles
in a definite sense when applying my own praxis to textual criticism.
Every other textual critic does this when following his or her own
principles.  My previous exclusion of conjectural emendation also
reflects such an application of my own principles.

> 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....

I would also note in passing that to quote or cite those who reflect a 
view of textual criticism which basically favors an Alexandrian text 
(Voobus slightly to the contrary) is not germane to the position of 
those who might favor a Byzantine-priority position.  This is a 
text-critical substitution of apples for oranges, and I could just as 
easily add in Scholz, Birks, Scrivener, Burgon, Miller, Hoskier, Hugh
Pope, Bover, Hodges, Farstad, Pickering, etc.  All these names,
however, are irrelevant to the issue of how any single person chooses
to practice or theorize about NT textual criticism.


>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.

This is purely a red herring. The quantity issue regarding Greek MSS is 
cited only to demonstrate that in view of the wealth of Greek MS 
evidence there is no need to make versions primary; the mentioned issue 
of quantity is not brought up with a view toward determining the 
original text by genealogical methods but only to draw a parallel with 
the resources available to classical scholars who _are_ highly 
dependent on versional sources as well as conjectural emendation.  See 
Paul Maas again.

Further, the scenario mentioned becomes absurd in the extreme, and is 
like the arguments which favor conjecture: the assumption is that all
or nearly all Greek MSS at a given point have "lost" the original
reading, but somehow a single version or perhaps two (e.g., sy + it-k)
mysteriously escaped the otherwise universal corruption which affected
almost the entire Greek text as well as every other version and father.

The genealogical hypothesis Petersen states is the same as was claimed 
by Westcott and Hort when discrediting the Byzantine text -- but as 
Colwell long ago noted, _no one_ has ever stemmatically demonstrated 
that such "errors" ever occurred so as to permeate the thousands of 
Greek MS copies while only a very few Greek or versional or patristic
sources preserve the "original" text.

I prefer to stick with _normal_ probabilities, based upon _normal_
patterns of transmission, rather than extreme cases of supposition.
In this light, the quantity of Greek MS evidence we possess remains
eminently suitable for establishing the text of the NT.  Versional and
patristic data remain important, but their role is subsidiary and
confirmatory, and is not intended to overthrow Greek testimony.  This
position is basically that of most textual critics, so I do not stand
alone on this matter.


>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.

Since Colwell seems to be quite correct that virtually all sensible 
readings were created before AD 200, then _all_ readings are "ancient,"
and I would not disparage the versions or fathers in this regard.
Whether a given "ancient" reading is original, on the other hand,
remains an open matter.


>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).

Since Souter can be dogmatic in his stance without being faulted, then 
I too should be allowed to be just as dogmatic, declaring Souter to be 
dead wrong in light of the converse: "A reading _cannot_ be right if it
is not contained in any single extant Greek MS."  Dogmatism cuts both
ways, and is entirely dependent upon the theory being espoused.


>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.

On the contrary, I _do_ consult the versions regularly in order to seek 
out their degree of support for one reading over another.  They have a 
significant usefulness in supplementing the Greek MS data.  I only 
contend that, when the versions read something apart from the Greek MS 
data, the presumption is that they are unlikely to be correct, and 
thus that their influence becomes virtually nil at such points.


>UBS4 dates the two Vetus Syra MSS to the "third/fourth century"
>(p. 26*).  That means they ANTEDATE alaph.

The date of the MSS is not as significant as the date of the text they
contain.  I believe all will agree that the text of sy-s and sy-c stems
from at least the mid-second-century.  A text similar to that of Aleph
also probably goes back that far; and the text of B is basically
second-century as reflected in P75.  That the material on which the old
Syriac MSS themselves were written may antedate the material on which
Aleph or B was written does not in itself grant them any higher textual
antiquity or authority.

>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.

This is fully granted, but the same question has to be asked regarding 
the old uncials -- Aleph did not miraculously spring into existence in 
the mid-4th century, but itself was copied from an earlier exemplar.  
The same can be said for B or A or D (which with its 5th-century date 
but a second-century text exemplifies the principle well).  I thus see 
no need why the old Syriac or it-a or it-k should be granted any 
text-critical preeminence over Greek MSS of identical or nearly 
identical date, or even over later Greek MSS which demonstrably reflect 
an earlier text, such as Theta and 565 to which Petersen appeals below.

>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.

(Not in N27, so don't bother looking; this well illustrates the point
of moving beyond UBS and Nestle when serious text-critical work needs
to be done).

The Latin reading _could_ have been rendered from a possible genitive 
absolute in a now non-extant Greek MS, and I would be the first to 
allow this possibility, though I would declare against originality 
since it is not found in extant Greek MS data, and also since the 
genitive absolute form is not common in John.  

However, the Syriac and Latin rendering could also reflect a smoother
_interpretation_ of "kai epi toutw" as they rendered the more abrupt
Greek into their own language -- this is another key reason why I would
not give much credence to versional readings otherwise unsupported by
Greek evidence.

>(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).

(Also not in N27).  This addition I see as an obvious gloss which
merely expands on Peter's already-exaggerated wish.  I see no reference
or allusion to either immersion or baptism by any mode intimated by
this addition, but merely hyberbole to emphasize the apostle's wish.
This gloss, though interesting, is obviously very early, but it enjoys
no Greek MS support, and therefore would not be regarded as authentic
by most textual critics.


>(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.

Is "kenson" (Mt/Mk) the usual Greek word, or is "foron" (Lk)?  Or are
both interchangeable?  It is interesting that scribes did not attempt 
to harmonize Lk with Mt or Mk regarding this word.

I have no problem in seeing D, which is tied to the Western Latinized
text having a Latin-based interpretation of "kenson" attached for
smoothness. It-d reads "tributum" with most other OL witnesses, but the
Greek D is not always tied to its parallel companion, even though both
appear in the same document.  Theta and 565, though late, are leading
representatives of the Caesarean text in Mark, and their reading is
presumed to be early, stemming from a common exemplar which
nevertheless seems to be different from either D, it-k, or sy.

It-k does offer a direct interpretation with "capitulum," as noted, but
even this may not reflect anything genealogical or stemmatic; rather,
both it-k and D may reflect the action of a scribe substituting a
synonymous (though more precise) term for the more general term.  Note
also that in context, Roman taxes in general were the referent, and not
one specific type of tax which might parallel the Jewish temple tax.

>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...

Since Syriac is a Semitic language, I am not surprised that the 
translators of that tradition may have rendered it semitically.  But
the Syriac tradition similarly may reflect merely a reasonable
interpretation of "khnson" rather than any genealogical connection to D
or it-k, just as the Caesarean witnesses may independently have arisen
from an archetypical interpretative rendering in a common exemplar.

>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.

Although these examples are interesting, I doubt whether anyone will
see a reason in any of the preceding instances to abandon the common
text preferred by _all_ schools of NT textual criticism.  The final
case of course, does have some Greek authority behind it, which
differentiates it in my opinion from the preceding two cases, but I
nevertheless find the case far less than compelling, since I simply do
not imbue even D or the Caesarean text with that great a degree of
authority when arrayed against the complete Alexandrian and Byzantine
traditions.  Since no other Greek NT editions follow in this regard
either, I can only that good reasons were held by other editors as well
to stay with the general consensus text rather than swiftly to adopt
seeming Semitisms in the manner of Matthew Black and C.C.Torrey.

>Because I know so little, and am so ignorant, I prefer to be guided by
>the evidence, not by rhetoric.  Collect the evidence first, THEN come
>to conclusions.

Since I consider myself even _more_ ignorant, I prefer in my simplicity 
to follow most textual critics on this point and to allow myself to be 
guided by the _Greek_ evidence first, with the versional and patristic
data as secondary resources.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back