Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules et al.

From: DC PARKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:00:19 GMT

I was grateful to Dr Young for her account of the use of the word 
'uncial' in Latin palaeography.  It is that which has led me to abandon 
the term completely in the field of Greek MSS.  It should be left to its 
technical use - in _Latin_.   It is not even as though  the Greek NT 
'uncial' MSS were all in one hand.  They are written in a variety of 
scripts which include biblical majuscule, upright pointed majuscule, 
etc.  But at least they are all majuscule, and my aim (as documented 
by Mike Holmes) is simply a greater measure of scientific accuracy.

The quotation from Kummel is not relevant, since he is just summing 
up what he believed to be the facts.

On another matter, I am amazed at the scorn for the value of the 
versions expressed in some quarters.  I would take it as read that the 
versions shed great light always on the history of the text and of its 
interpretation.  Bill Petersen suggests an example, so here is some 
fuel for the fire:

I've just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing 
the significance of the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac MSS, and 
Bobbiensis of the Old Latin MSS as three of the most significant 
witnesses; not to mention the Armenian which, though derived from 
the Greek via a Syriac intermediary, is an important witness to the 
text of Mark.  Remove the versional evidence, and the Greek MSS 
provide a rather misleading picture of the history of the text.

David Parker
DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:55:30 -0700

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, DC PARKER <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ ... ]

>provide a rather misleading picture of the history of the text.

I think this hints at an important rule: "The more important the
variant, the more important the versions." The versions probably
don't help us much in deciding between DE and KAI, or between
verb tenses; even if the particular version can distinguish the
two variants, it may have been translated loosely.

But on important variants (the ending of Mark, the ending of
Romans, John 7:53f., etc.), where the crucial matter is not
the exact form but the very *presence* of the variants, the
versions come to the fore, since for variants such as this
they are weighty and ancient witnesses.

I think it's true that the translations from late vulgate
manuscripts (e.g. Wycliffe's English bible) aren't much
use. But we could assuredly use good, critical evaluation
of the Latin, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Syriac witnesses
(that's the order in which *I'd* like to see them done;
others will probably disagree). Also, the Gothic is interesting
in Paul, although it's mostly Byzantine in Mark.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:44:37 -0400 (EDT)

> provide a rather misleading picture of the history of the text.

I consider it significant that among the two Old Syriac traditions one
contains the long ending of Mark and the other omits such.  What
conclusion then should be drawn regarding that ending within the Syriac
church?

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

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:59:07 -0600

> conclusion then should be drawn regarding that ending within the Syriac

	The many theories regarding the ending of Mark has always
been intriguing to me.  They include:

	1. Mark died before completing the Gospel.  This conflicts
with my opinion of an early date (in the 40's).

	2. The last page of the autograph was lost.  This, however
supposes a codex form very early in the 1st century.

	3. There were two books by the same name between the times
of Papias and Irenaeus.  Possible since this would resove 1 & 2.

	4. Among other theories is the recent one by Powell that
the ending of Mark was appended to GJohn (Jn 21).

	My understanding in that the Sinaitic version is earlier than the
Curatonian but both are from earlier sources..which muddles the
opinion about priority.  Again, one from the Diatessaron and the other
from Byzantine could be pertinent to "Mark plus" in one.  I would be
interested in opinions regarding the Syriac texts in this puzzle.

Jack Kilmon
Houston, Texas
[email-masked]