Mon Nov 4 08:50:48 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Nov  4 08:50:48 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA00927; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:49:58 -0500
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:46:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: versions
In-Reply-To: 
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: 3261



On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, DC PARKER wrote:

> 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.  

Dr. Parker and I agree on this point.  However, I would like to ask
precisely _what_ does the Vorlage of a version imply?  Certainly not a
testimony as diverse as might be found among a number of Greek MSS, but
basically only the (usually single) Greek exemplar which might have been
the archetype of that particular version.  As the comment above notes, in
a versional translation, "one is handling _a_ witness to the [single] lost
Greek exemplar" of that version.  In this light, I am perfectly willing to
accept versional testimony (once items endemic to the versional
translation are eliminated) as that of the single Greek MS which was the
archetype of that version, and from thence to treat such versional
evidence as equal to one Greek witness.

Versional testimony still remains secondary, in my opinion, precisely
because of the need to eliminate translational items and version-specific
items.  Had it been primary (i.e. Greek), the readings would stand as they
were transmitted.  So I am not certain whether we are having merely a
semantic difference here or whether Dr. Parker intends something more.

> 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.

I would also concur with this as well, with the caveat that the
"similarities in translation technique" or "coincidence" might well
explain most of the shared readings between versions _except_ for those
which are texttype specific in cases where one or more versions are based
primarily on a given texttype.  I am not certain whether such agreement is
necessarily evidence of a "widespread early form of the text", however;
only that a given variant may have been known in more than one region by
the time a versional MS was produced in such a locality.

> 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?

I would hope so, though I also was clearly taught not to put too much
weight on versional (or patristic) testimony as opposed to the Greek text;
i.e., to regard the versions as secondary....

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back