Thu Oct 24 08:29:04 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Oct 24 08:29:04 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA22314; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:28:07 -0400
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:24:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nichael Cramer 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961024072259.1ac725de@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: 1422

On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote:
> At 04:03 AM 10/24/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >And let's not speak about Arabic, Ethiopian, medieval Dutch, English,
> >Catalan, Soghdian, Persian, medieval Hebrew, etc... 
> The simplest explanation as to why these minor translations have no
> influence on TC is simply because they are minor.  They do not, in reality,
> help us to reconstruct the Greek text of the NT or the Hebrew text of the OT
> [...]
> The only use versions like these have is to compare with one another- being
> translations of translations, etc., they do not take us any closer to the
> Greek text.  [...]

Indeed, the standard argument for not considering most of the versional 
data is, is it not, that many of these later versions were themselves 
based on versional or later Greek textual traditions.  (For example many 
of the versions mentioned were in fact translations from the Vulgate!)

As such, as "children" of already well attested earlier versions and text 
types, these later version provide no new or rather _independent_ 
witnesses to the original underlying Greek text.

Clearly there are some versions that provide useful information (in a 
text critical sense); one obvious example is the Syriac.  But the 
inclusion of many/most of the later versional data would seem to be 
indistinguishable from the traditional Majority Text argument of simply 
"counting the available manuscripts".

N

Back