Fri Oct 25 10:01:32 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Oct 25 10:01:32 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA03455; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:59:27 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:55:30 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Versions (was: Re: uncials & majuscules et al.)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1877

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, DC PARKER  wrote:

[ ... ]

>On another matter, I am amazed at the scorn for the value of the
>versions expressed in some quarters.  I would take it as read that the
>versions shed great light always on the history of the text and of its
>interpretation.  Bill Petersen suggests an example, so here is some
>fuel for the fire:
>
>I've just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing
>the significance of the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac MSS, and
>Bobbiensis of the Old Latin MSS as three of the most significant
>witnesses; not to mention the Armenian which, though derived from
>the Greek via a Syriac intermediary, is an important witness to the
>text of Mark.  Remove the versional evidence, and the Greek MSS
>provide a rather misleading picture of the history of the text.

I think this hints at an important rule: "The more important the
variant, the more important the versions." The versions probably
don't help us much in deciding between DE and KAI, or between
verb tenses; even if the particular version can distinguish the
two variants, it may have been translated loosely.

But on important variants (the ending of Mark, the ending of
Romans, John 7:53f., etc.), where the crucial matter is not
the exact form but the very *presence* of the variants, the
versions come to the fore, since for variants such as this
they are weighty and ancient witnesses.

I think it's true that the translations from late vulgate
manuscripts (e.g. Wycliffe's English bible) aren't much
use. But we could assuredly use good, critical evaluation
of the Latin, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Syriac witnesses
(that's the order in which *I'd* like to see them done;
others will probably disagree). Also, the Gothic is interesting
in Paul, although it's mostly Byzantine in Mark.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back