Mon Nov 4 10:28:09 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Nov  4 10:28:09 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA01714; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:26:57 -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 15:18:23 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: 1509

Professor Robinson wrote

> 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.

Yes (or perhaps no), I don't think that it's an unreal difference, so 
here is something more.

I still don't think that there is any _essential_ difference between a 
version and a Greek MS, for this reason: To recover the Vorlage of a 
version, one has to eliminate the clutter of translation and 
subsequent corruption.  To recover the text of a Greek MS's 
exemplar, one has to identify and to eliminate the errors of the scribe. 
 Once that is acknowledged, then the two types of evidence are of 
equal weight as witnesses in the reconstruction of the history of the 
text, and thus in the process of observing the introduction of 
readings.  Of course, a version might be taken as witness to a single 
Greek MS (though here one might have to be careful; the oldest Old 
Latin MSS would have to count as separate versions on this 
reckoning); but is not the same true of any one Greek MS (excepting 
the possibility of corrections to a scribe's work, of course)?

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