Tue Nov 5 06:31:16 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Nov  5 06:31:16 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id GAA10607; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 06:29:19 -0500
Message-ID: 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: DC PARKER 
Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:14:17 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: 1978

 Maurice Robinson wrote
> 
> Here we may still have semantic differences.  I would consider each
> separate MS of a given version as reflecting a witness to some 
overarching  Vorlage of that version, but not equal to the same thing 
as separate Greek MSS.  
> 
> 
Yes, it had not occurred to me that anybody would count 25 Armenian 
MSS as 'equal to the same thing as separate Greek MSS'.  But here 
one cannot generalise.  To take all the MSS of a version as witnesses 
to the Vorlage is to assume that a version is 'watertight', with no 
influence upon it from the Greek tradition after the production of the 
Vorlage.  But there are of course examples of readings where the 
knowledge of a different Greek text has affected a MS or MSS of a 
version (the sort of place where an apparatus might read sah (mss) or 
suchlike).  It is thus not possible to insist on Professor Robinson's 
very rigid schema.  Yes, one sets out in versional research with the 
main task of reconstructing the Greek Vorlage.  But one has to be 
open to the possibility that any variant from that which is not 
inner-versional corruption may be due to further Greek influence.

An example which I dig out at random is Luke 22.3.  The Greek v.l. is 
(teste NA 27) epikaloumenon / kaloumenon.  Vulgate MSS (teste WW) 
have the v.ll.  cognominabatur / cognominatur / uocabatur / uocabitur / 
 uocatur.

Weeding out the inner-Latin, one then has the question which Jerome 
might have read, and then of accounting for the other.  I grant the 
difficulty of the fact that Old Latin d has uocatur, so that the variation 
might be due to Old Latin influence.  But if you will grant that special 
problem, we have the possibility of continuing Greek influence.

I don't think that this is semantic.  It's a part of how one views and 
uses and interprets the materials.

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