Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories

From: "John Brogan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:53:34 EST5EDT

Colleagues,

I have been a "silent observer" on the tc-list since its inception. 
But two posts today have forced me to come out of my seclusion.  

On Thursday, 24 Oct 1996, Jim West wrote...
 
> The simplest explanation as to why these minor translations have no
> influence on TC is simply because they are minor.  They do not, in reality,
> help us to reconstruct the Greek text of the NT or the Hebrew text of the OT
> (unless someone is going to argue that the NT was originally written in KJ
> english!).
> The only use versions like these have is to compare with one another- being
> translations of translations, etc., they do not take us any closer to the
> Greek text.

Who says that the only goal of textual criticism is to "reconstruct 
the Greek/Hebrew text" or to get "closer to the Greek text?"  As I 
understand it, the reconstruction of the "original text" is only one 
of the goals of TC.  As I will discuss below, cross-comparison is not 
the "only use" of the later versional evidence.

> When a version does seem to have an "older" reading it is, somewhere, based
> on a Greek manuscript.

But the question remains whether the Greek examplar is still extant.
 William Peterson and Tjitze Baarda have shown some very possible
"original readings" that do not exist in the Greek mss tradition. 
Thus, if the versions were not studied, this information would not
be available to us.

> Thus it does not behhove us to waste years of study on "medieval
> dutch" and  its contribution to NT TC when we ought to spend our
> time with the greek mss.

Leave me out of your "us" in the above statement.  I do not think
that the scholars who have devoted the time, discipline, and effort
necessary to study  versional (or lectionary or patristic) evidence
have "wasted years of study."  The rest of us should be thankful for
their contributions.  We should also try to incorporate their 
discoveries into our own textual theories.

This leads me to a larger criticism of our guild.  The preoccupation
that some NT "text critics" display for the Greek mss alone is a
prime example of what I consider to be the "naval-gazing" attitude of
our field.  As we stare into our cloistered little greek
belly-buttons to analyze the naval lint we find there, scholars in
other disciplines roll their eyes and wonder what textual criticism
has to offer to the broader scholarly world.  I suppose that it
"behooves us" more to "spend our time" rehashing ad nauseum textual
variants that occur in the greek mss tradition!!??

Please do not misunderstand me.  I realize the immense amount of work
that still needs to be done on the Greek mss evidence.  But in order
to develop a satisfactory theory of the transmission of the NT 
text, more work needs to be done than merely comparing Greek mss. 
In order to develop a theory of the text, we need to understand how
that text was viewed and used by the early church.  For this,
versional and patristic evidence is not only helpful, but absolutely 
necessary.  Thus, to disparage the study of versions because they 
represent "translations of translations" is not only imprudent, but 
also myopic and arrogant.
 
Also on Thursday, 24 Oct 1996, Nichael Cramer wrote...

> Indeed, the standard argument for not considering most of the
> versional data is, is it not, that many of these later versions were
> themselves based on versional or later Greek textual traditions.  (For
> example many of the versions mentioned were in fact translations from
> the Vulgate!)
> As such, as "children" of already well attested earlier versions and
> text types, these later version provide no new or rather _independent_
> witnesses to the original underlying Greek text.

At least Nichael's comments display a modicum of respect for scholars 
who study later versional evidence.  In many cases, however, it still 
remains to be proved whether the later versions are based on the Vulgate 
or later Greek textual traditions.  Even a close correspondence 
between a version and the Vulgate or later Greek tradition does not 
necessarily prove that that version was derived from them. Perhaps it 
has a long and independent line of transmission.  

> Clearly there are some versions that provide useful information (in a
> text critical sense); one obvious example is the Syriac.  But the
> inclusion of many/most of the later versional data would seem to be
> indistinguishable from the traditional Majority Text argument of
> simply "counting the available manuscripts".

Again, I would ask what is the definition of "useful information?"
Who decides what is "useful?"  Is it only information that pertains
to the original text?  Are we to judge scholarly work on the basis of
its utility to our own interests alone?  I think this once again
betrays many people's preoccupation with the "original text."
Versional, lectionary, and patristic evidence do provide information
concerning the original text (despite the disclaimers otherwise),
but just as importantly, they provide wonderful evidence of how the
early church regarded and used scripture.  For example, might not the
Arabic versions display anti- or pro-Islamic polemic (depending on
who produced the text) in its textual variants? Might not the
lectionary material reveal internal church disputes about the
interpretation of scripture or the litrugy of the church?  Might not
the "haphazard" citation techniques of church fathers display a wider
approach to biblical texts that also existed among the anonymous
scribes who copied the texts?   Is not this "useful information?"   
Why are such questions considered to be lying outside of the field of 
TC?

Most of my comments reflect question concerning NT TC, but it seems 
to me that the same questions could be raised in the field of  Hebrew 
Bible TC.

John Brogan
Dept. of Religion and Theology
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, MI

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:41:10 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, John Brogan wrote:
> who study later versional evidence. [...]

In view of John's response it is clear that I should make clear certain
assumptions implicit in my earlier response.  First and foremost that the
topic under discussion was the use of the versions in the reconstruction
of the original text of the NT (for which I admittedly --perhaps
clumsily-- used the shorthand "Text Criticism"). 

Equally clear is the John's point that the versions have great usefulness
in many areas (as one obvious example, the history of the early Church).
However my (intended) point was simply that as _independent_ sources of
evidence --and all that that entails for the reconstruction of the Greek
originals-- they are presumably less useful in that domain. 

Nichael