Wed Oct 23 10:07:23 1996
From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 10:07:23 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA12174; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:06:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:06:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
In-Reply-To: <326D9C90.2E68@dhinternet.com>
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: 4368
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Hubert Arthur Bahr III wrote:
> Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the
> original language? Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on
> the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic,
> Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to
> offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the
> languages?
And, on Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Johannes van der Tak responded:
> Yes, Hubert Bahr, that is a correct suggestion about versions. I have
> been working on the text of the Slavonic version, of which by the way up
> to now no critical or other edition exists, and I noticed that the
> Slavonic version may in some minor cases contribute something to the
> correct choice in establishing the Greek text.
> My publications on this have appeared in Paleobulgarica (1995) and Polata
> Knigopisnaya (1996). I showed, however, that it concerns only minor
> points, not "main issues" in belief or that sort of Christian topics.
The question of how (or even whether!) to use the versions in textual
criticism illustrates a significant difference in approaches among OT and
NT textual critics. While most NT people would probably agree in theory
with Metzger that the versions are important for determining the "original
text" (Aland disputes this, however--and the whole question of "original
text" deserves another thread), the fact is that there is probably not a
single reading in NA27 based primarily, let alone exclusively, on
versional evidence. Although Bill Petersen and a few others have issued a
call for more attention to be paid to the early versions (and fathers), it
seems that few are heeding it. The reason for setting aside the versions
is easy to see: there are so many early Greek witnesses that many people
find it hard to believe that the versions can really add anything of
substance to the conversation. Of course, the difficulty in dealing with
other languages (especially languages like Slavonic!) also comes into
play.
OT textual critics, on the other hand, are forced to look more closely at
the versions, because most Hebrew witnesses (i.e., the MT) are medieval in
date, and so many readings throughout the OT are obviously corrupt in
Hebrew. Of course, some OT text-critics make every effort to support the
MT whenever possible (by resorting to linguistic criticism, for example),
but few, if any, would say that the LXX especially never provides a
superior reading. Of course, many OT scholars frequently prefer readings
of the LXX (or occasionally one of the other versions) to that of the MT
or of other Hebrew witnesses.
OT textual critics' need to deal with the versions has led them to begin
to develop methodologies for using the versions. The best-known example
is Tov's book _The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint_, but there are
several other studies dealing with one version or another. The practice
of pulling a reading from a Syriac witness more or less haphazardly is
surely unjustifiable from a methodological perspective, and I think that
text-critics of the OT, and especially of the NT, need to focus more on
the question of methodology. Here are some questions that must be
addressed.
(1) Which text of a version should I use (i.e., is there a critical
text?)?
(2) What are the characteristics of the target language that reflect
aspects of the source language?
(3) What grammatical or stylistic features of the target language make it
difficult or impossible to represent the source language?
(4) What grammatical or stylistic features of the _version_ make it
unlikely that the _Vorlage_ can be reconstructed at a given point in the
text?
(5) What procedures should be followed to retrovert a versional text into
the source language?
(6) Where does a particular version fit within the textual stemma that
includes all the witnesses (as nearly as can be determined)?
These, it seems to me, are some of the questions that ought to be
addressed by anyone who wants to use versional evidence in textual
criticism. No wonder the versions are so neglected!
Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
Back