Thu Oct 24 11:48:05 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Oct 24 11:48:05 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA24634; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:44:56 -0400
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:41:10 -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: <236AF97437A@legacy.calvin.edu>
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: 1419

On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, John Brogan wrote:
> Also on Thursday, 24 Oct 1996, Nichael Cramer 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!)
> > 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.
> At least Nichael's comments display a modicum of respect for scholars 
> who study later versional evidence. [...]

In view of John's response it is clear that I should make clear certain
assumptions implicit in my earlier response.  First and foremost that the
topic under discussion was the use of the versions in the reconstruction
of the original text of the NT (for which I admittedly --perhaps
clumsily-- used the shorthand "Text Criticism"). 

Equally clear is the John's point that the versions have great usefulness
in many areas (as one obvious example, the history of the early Church).
However my (intended) point was simply that as _independent_ sources of
evidence --and all that that entails for the reconstruction of the Greek
originals-- they are presumably less useful in that domain. 

Nichael

Back