Wed Oct 23 20:54:24 1996
From owner-tc-list Wed Oct 23 20:54:24 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id UAA19508; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:53:05 -0400
Message-Id: <326EBB6F.6A82@dhinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 19:42:23 -0500
From: Hubert Arthur Bahr III
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories--Versional evidence
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3769
James R. Adair wrote:
> 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?)?
Could you put together a "bibliography of critical texts" page on the
TC website? I have a hard time getting books, but is next to impossible
when I don't know what to ask the bookseller for.
>
> (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 <-----------------
It looks like a huge job. What has been done to this point? And where
could I go to prepare for such an undertaking?
Back