Sat Oct 26 11:14:34 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 11:14:34 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA12633; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:13:33 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:09:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Versional testimony
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961024113331.19d71822@mail.sunbelt.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3232



On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote:

> Why?  What can the versions add to a knowledge of the Greek text?  The
> versions spring from the Greek text and not the other way around.  And using
> versional evidence to reconstruct a hypothetical greek text is pointless.

I will differ sharply from Jim West on the point of the versional
testimony.  Indeed, I consider the versions an essential part and an
important step toward establishing the original text (though I do not
permit their evidence to supersede that of the Greek MSS, just as I do not
permit patristic testimony to overrride the Greek MS evidence).

Contrary to West ("it is a pure scholarly construction and of no value in
determining an original reading"), the underlying Greek text of a version
often _can_ be reconstructed with virtual certainty, and to that extent
the versional testimony ranks equal with that of a given MS within the
Greek tradition. 

Certainly where linguistic peculiarities may exist, versional testimony
may be of little or no help in reconstructing the original text, but this
does not negate the use of the versions in other particulars.  

Further, there does remain a valid use of versional testimony in the
attempt to understand the use and meaning of the scriptural text in the
history of the early and medieval church, and I would not deprecate those
whose particular field of interest lies in that direction, even though
such does not bear directly upon the establishment of the original text
itself.

> >This leads me to a larger criticism of our guild.  The preoccupation
> >that some NT "text critics" display for the Greek mss alone is a
> >prime example of what I consider to be the "navel-gazing" attitude of
> >our field. 

> Yet when one is a "navel-ologist" one studies navels.  If one desires to be
> a scholar of coptic, cool.  But that does not mean that the scholar of
> coptic can intrude into TC and tell its practitioneres that the coptic text
> represents a more faithful rendering of the words of Paul than the Greek
> text does.

Here, on the other hand, I would agree more with West, since the
establishment of the original Greek vorlage would be primarily dependent
upon Greek witnesses (MSS and patristic citations) rather than versions.
On the other hand, were there little or no Greek data available (cf. the
Diatessaron), then certainly the versional testimony would assume a much
higher rank; but in the case of the Greek NT and the establishment of the
original text of that corpus, the abundance of Greek evidence seems to
force most textual critics to contemplate that particular navel rather
than to seek elsewhere.

> Our task is to reconstruct the Biblical text- not seek the
> acclaim of the podiatrists of the world.

I fear that scribal confusion has occurred which has switched the metaphor
from belly to foot. Should this be considered a substitution of a synonym
or harmonization to a parallel?


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

Back