Thu Oct 24 09:34:38 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Oct 24 09:34:38 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA22929; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:33:10 -0400
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:29:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West 
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961024093040.278fede8@mail.sunbelt.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
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: 1305

At 08:24 AM 10/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>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!)
>

This is how I understand it.

>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.
>

Again, this is what seems correct to me.


>Clearly there are some versions that provide useful information (in a 
>text critical sense); one obvious example is the Syriac. 

Absolutely- but Syriac is a semitic language which is very close to Aramaic
and therefore very useful in helping us determine possible semitic
substructures to the Greek text.  But as evidence of the Greek text....

> 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".
>

Indeed- a procedure most hazardous.

>N


Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages
Petros TN

Back