Tue Nov 5 17:08:31 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Nov  5 17:08:31 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA17086; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 17:07:26 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 17:03:31 -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: 2703



On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, DC PARKER wrote:

> 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.  

Again Parker and I are agreed.  I certainly do not mean to imply that
there cannot be various recensions and texttypes within a versional
tradition -- in fact I pointed this out specifically in regard to the
European and African Old Latin traditions.  The Georgian 1 and 2 are
another clear example, and there are sub-types among all versional
traditions, so far as I recall.

> 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).  

This also is agreed.  Certainly those MSS which are in such places
atypical of the versional Vorlage will have either created a reading by
accident or chance, or will thereby indicate by such a variant a knowledge
of other circulating readings, either in the versional tradition or from
Greek or patristic sources.

> 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.

Agreed, so long as "may not" also remains a possibility, in which case
intra-versional variants (not "corruption" per se) may simply be thus
reflected.

> might be due to Old Latin influence.  But if you will grant that special 
> problem, we have the possibility of continuing Greek influence.

In the case mentioned, there certainly seems to be evidence to that point.
I would not suggest in the absence of conflicting Greek testimony,
however, that two variant readings in the same unit among OL MSS would
imply a "lost" Greek variant no longer extant among the Greek MS
tradition, but that such likely reflects intra-OL variation instead.

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

I also would concur on this point, even though it is certain that we might
not use the same materials in the same manner.

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

Back