Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories

From: [email-masked] (Jean Valentin)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:54:46 GMT

>Is it possible for a version to preserve a better reading than the
>original language?  Why is it that we seem to concentrate so heavily on
>the Greek New Testament and virtually ignore the Latin, Syriac, Coptic,
>Georgian, Slavonic . . . Is it that we feel the versions have little to
>offer, or is it simply the difficulty of mastering all the
>languages?
>

I agree with this. One of the things I regret most in greek NT editions
(specially NA27) is that they hardly use the versions at all.
In Belgium, we have some specialists (P. Bogaert, G. Gryson) working on the
old latin versions and each of their studies shows the real antiquity of
these text-types, as well for OT as for NT.
For my part, I have learned most of the languages of NT versions, and I'm
often seeing how NT scholars should benefit from this study. I am preparing
editions of Arabic manuscripts of the Gospels, and some of them show a very
old type of text.
I think there are some reasons why NT scholars don't study the versions:
1. Prejudice: as versional mss are "late", they can't be interesting. This
is also what leads the Aland school to prefer the egyptian papyri above
everything. In fact, all that the egyptian papyri show us is the evolution
of the text... in Egypt. Speaking about dates, late versions, specially
when they are far geographically from the center (Greece and Anatolia) can
keep very old textual forms. Just an example: in the Brussels Royal
Library, there's a Persian ms of the Gospels of the XVIIth century... and
it's full of old syriac variants. The Arabic ms of which I'm prepairing an
edition is of the Xth century, but it reflects a text form that is both
short and clearly palestinian (by this, I mean it has many common variants
with codex Koridethi, the syropalestinian and georgian versions). And let's
not speak about diatessaric witnesses: when two of them, at two extremities
of the world, share common variants, it seems to me to be of much weight...
But NT scholars wouldn't even look at it, because these mss are "late". In
fact, I think peripheral traditions are often more _conservative_ than the
greek one. This is also true, by the way, in liturgy, a closely related
discipline, and this leads me to my second point.
2. Confessional and theological influences. Most NT scholars come from
theological circles. Some might have begun learning their greek in
seminary, and theological institutions are often not the place to study,
say, georgian, middle dutch or arabic. There is already so much to study in
the fields of dogmatics and pastoral theology. Thelogical education is not
adequate for a discipline like textual criticism as it is a _literary_
discipline. Also, at least in America (which is where most of you live) the
religious scene is dominated by protestantism, and often by non-liturgical
forms of it. As I work in the two fields of NT textual criticism, I notice
that both fields are intimately related, as characteristics of a liturgical
tradition will also be seen in the text it uses. On example to illustrate
this : the appearance, then dominance of the Byzantine text in the
Jerusalem patriarchate coincides with (1) the loss of power of its
patriarch, residing then in Constantinople, and (2) the introduction of the
St John Chrysostom liturgy (also byzantine) in place of the older, local,
St James liturgy). But liturgy, and especially history of the eastern
liturgies and churches, doesn't receive much attention in the formation of
evangelical ministers - and it's quite normal. Only, when this minister
wants to become a scholar, will he have to take some supplementary courses
in those disciplines.

I notice that what I write might sound harsh to some of you - I don't know,
I'm sorry if this is so, it's probably because I write in a language that's
not mine (I speak french) and I don't intend to be offensive at all!

shlomo w-shayno !

Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - Belgique

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqué est inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.
Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd. Wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:38:15 -0700

>(specially NA27) is that they hardly use the versions at all.

Hear, hear! NA27 ignores the Armenian and Georgian, often fails to
cite the Coptic versions, and is inadequate for the Old Latin (for
many variations you can't tell which Latins read what).

[ ... ]

>I think there are some reasons why NT scholars don't study the versions:

[ ... ]

>discipline.

Again, a very good point. In fact, I think the "perfect" textual
critic will have *four* kinds of training.

1. Linguistic
2. Mathematical (to deal with the statistical study of manuscripts. As
   a mathematician, I can only state that very many textual studies have
   been *very* mathematically bad).
3. Literary
4. Folkloric. Folklore and folk music is the only field which allows us
   to see tradition in action. Admittedly this is oral tradition, and
   the NT tradition is primarily written -- but we all know that the
   Biblical tradition also contains oral elements.

Notice that I did not list theological training. Obviously those with
theological training are usually those most interested in NT textual
criticism -- but it may also cause them to develop bias.

And I should note that I do not meet my own critera. I am a
horrible linguist. I am a decent mathematician, I have a passing
knowledge of literary phenomena, and I am a fair folklorist (perhaps
the best on this list, but that may not be saying much :-).

I wonder if anyone has *ever* met all the criteria?

>Also, at least in America (which is where most of you live) the

I'll agree that liturgy and text are intimately related. Though I don't
see why not growing up with the liturgy would keep us from understanding
its influence.

>not mine (I speak french) and I don't intend to be offensive at all!

I don't think this sounds harsh; I think most of what you said is true.

Of course, I am neither a trained textual critic nor a person who
subscribes to the usual textual theories. So much for my opinions. :-)

Robert B. Waltz  - - - - - - - - Ballad Index Editor
2095 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4801
612-454-8994 - - - - - - - - - - e-mail: [email-masked]

The Ballad Index Web Site:
http://www.csufresno.edu/forlang/folklore/bdindxengl/BalladIndexTOC.html