Sun Nov 3 12:59:24 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sun Nov  3 12:59:24 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA25119; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:58:15 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <961103031734_344689006@emout02.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:36:30 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: 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: 2831

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, REElliott@aol.com wrote, in part:

[ ... ]

>DC also correctly states that the Armenian was derived from the Greek via the
>Syriac,

I should note that there is still not universal consensus on this point.
It seems likely enough -- but far from certain. Also, there are many
who believe that the Armenian was eventually corrected toward the Greek.

[BTW -- since I know neither Syriac nor Armenian, I hereby disavow
any opinon on this matter.]

One thing that *is* important, though, is that the Armenian has a
textual complexion distinctly different from any extant Syriac
version. In the Gospels, it may be "Caesarean"; in Paul, if anything,
it goes with family 2127 (not too surprisingly, since one of the
leading mss. of family 2127 is 256, a Greek/Armenian diglot).

>which brings up an important point;  We must look at the Greek MSS
>1st, the versional evidence 2nd and then the patrisitic citations 3rd. If the
>Armenian was derived from the Greek, then are not all versional NT MSS in
>essence "derived" from the Greek?   Therefore we must give precedence to the
>Greek MSS and if they are very silent concerning a particular passage (such
>as Mark 16) then the versional MSS et al can only be secondary and tertiary
>at best, they cannot supersede the primary Greek.  As much as I would love to
>have mountains of Greek evidence for the long ending of Mark, I have to
>follow these rules to be true to the discipline.  Is it possible to put the
>theological presuppositions aside and examine the evidence from a neutral
>standpoint?

I think I missed something here. We *do* have "mountains" of evidence
for the longer ending (several thousand Greek manuscripts, and probably
about seven or eight thousand manuscripts in Latin, Syriac (Peshitta),
Armenian, etc. It's just that a handful of manuscripts have a shorter
ending -- and those manuscripts are of great antiquity and are generally
regarded as being of high quality.

>Therefore I must disagree with the ending statement that DC made saying that
>the Greek MSS give a misleading history of the text.  What is misleading is
>attempting to build a theory on secondary and tertiary MSS.  Perhaps there
>are still some more Greek MSS to be found regarding this variant, who knows?

I would agree that it is misleading to work *only* from versions and
quotations. (Though the only person I can think of who has attempted
anything like that is Boismard.) But we *must* not ignore the versions
completely. They are, for example, the *key* to the "Western" text,
and probably the prop upon which the "Caesarean" will stand or fall.
Similarly, the fathers give us the only way to assign dates and
locations to readings. A solid approach to variants *must* focus on
date and distribution; hence such evidence is vital.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back