Thu Jan 23 11:44:33 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan 23 11:44:33 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA10107; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:43:58 -0500
Message-ID: <32E79419.7BF0@concentric.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:38:49 -0800
From: Kenneth Litwak 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Use of versions in OT TC
References: <2D89302D07@div.ed.ac.uk> <306EE4453B@div.ed.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 743

When I was first introduced to TC in the OT, I was told about the 
relative value of various versions, e.g., latin, Syriac, Armenian, etc. 
Now that I've read more widely, like Tov, McCarter and Klein, it seems 
to me that one's assessment of the value of an early version for 
determining the reading which is most likely "original", depends in 
large part upon how closely said version adheres to either the MT or the 
 OG,and one's judgment about which of those two traditions is closer to 
the original. What I'd like to know is this:  are there any features of 
the ancient versions, independent of their proximity in readings to the 
MT or OG, which indicate they are more or less reliable witnesses to the 
"original" text?

Ken Litwak

Back