Mon Nov 4 05:00:35 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Nov  4 05:00:35 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id EAA00046; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:59:24 -0500
Message-ID: 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: DC PARKER 
Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:43:50 GMT
Subject: Re: versions
Priority: normal
X-mailer: WinPMail v1.0 (R2)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1364

Prof. Robinson and Mr Elliott prefer to speak of versions as 
'secondary' and patristic citations as 'tertiary'.  Such a hierarchy 
seems to me quite mistaken, since the cases are quite dissimilar.  
But less us stick to versions.  The point which I wish to stress is that, 
once one has exercised due caution in eliminating readings which 
might be due to translation technique or corruption within a versional 
tradition, one is handling a witness to a lost Greek MS, the Vorlage, 
just as with a Greek MS one is handling a witness to the lost 
Greek exemplar.  That is to say, the versions are as valuable as 
Greek MSS in reconstructing the history of the text.  I took the endings 
of Mark as a passage where that is clearly illustrated.  I will only add 
that where, for example, two early versions concur in a striking 
reading that could not be due to similarities in translation technique 
or to coincidence, then we will have evidence of a widespread early 
form of the text.

The examination of the versions is is such an established part of the 
way in which I learned to study the transmission of the NT text, that I 
can hardly imagine conducting research without it.  Surely most 
people are taught like this?

David Parker
DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK

Back