Subject: Re: Versional variants

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 96 16:48:25 +0100

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin presented some variant readings which seem to 
be supported by more than one version while lacking Greek MSS support. He wrote 
(inter alia):

>Mt 2.8 "eipen": add "to them": Liege diatessaron (dutch), arabic
>diatessaron, Pepys harmony (old english, but quite paraphrastic, i wouldn't
>make too much of it for such a detail), hebrew-spain and again the georgian
>jruch ms (geoD).

To these witnesses add Greek MSS D (05) 1071.

>Mt 2.9 This is puzzling. greek "epano" means "above". Now, some versions
>have not "above": sys has "at the place where", as also (again) the
>georgian Jruch ms (geoD). Hebrew-spain has "in front of the place where",
>and Hebrew-italy has (difficult to translate - is it a conflation?) "above
>in front of" (mimma`al minneged).

To these witnesses add Protevangelium Jacobi (James); compare D (05).

The main difficulties with "anecdotal lists" of this type was perfectly well set 
out by Larry W. Hurtado. On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Larry wrote:

>Thanks to Jean Valentin for his list of variants which seem to be 
>supported by two or more versional traditions.  As he notes, however, 
>at least a number from his list could be considered coincidental 
>"agreements", which scribes or translators independently producing 
>the same/similar variation either deliberately or by accident.
>We must, therefore, *weigh* the variants, as to whether they can more 
>easily be accounted for as coincidental or may require some "genetic" 
>connection to explain them.  Agreements in individual variants are not very 
>meaningful *unless the variants are significant [i.e., suggest a 
>historical/genetic connection] or are so plentiful as to suggest a 
>common textual history*.
>We must, thus, ask for a complete list of the places where these same 
>versional traditions *agree and disagree*, and not merely an 
>anecdotal list of variants such as Valentin provided us.  The history 
>of textual criticism in this century has been plagued with such 
>anecdotal lists, perhaps esp. in connection with the so-called 
>"Caesarean" text-type, as I hope to have shown in my 1981 study of 
>Codex W.

For even more perplexing examples of misguided scholarly work by means of 
"anecdotal lists" I may draw your attention to Bill Petersens magnificent 
monograph on *Tatian's Diatessaron* (Brill: 1994). In reviewing the history of 
Diatessaronic scholarship we find, for example in the work of H.J. Vogels and A. 
Baumstark, extremely biased and demonstrably flawed lists of agreements between 
various versions. Both underwent severe critique (cf. A.S. Lewis and J. 
Rathofer, presented in Petersen, pp. 301-306.360) for _producing_ Diatessaronic 
readings out of textual trivia, and partly out of printing errors in modern 
editions (Baumstark). It is precisely this type of scholarship, presenting 
anecdotal lists without carefully *weighing* the evidence, that discredited 
Diatessaronic research.
Personally, I am willing to give versional evidence a prominent role in 
examining the textual transmission of the Greek NT text. However, in order to 
*establish* secure connections between versions and versions, and between 
versions and Greek texts we have to exclude all other possible explanations for 
an alleged variant reading. The more restrictive we procede, the more we can 
impress (not to say convert) sceptics.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 10:35:17 -0700

On Tue, 05 Nov 96, [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid) wrote, in part:

[ ... ]

>impress (not to say convert) sceptics.

I'm just going to add one comment on Diatessaronic readings. That is that
we must always be alert to the influence of oral tradition in creating such
readings. Many (admittedly not all) of the readings of the Diatessaron are
the sorts of readings that would automatically arise when one harmonizes
the gospels.

But gospel harmonization is what preachers, scribes, scholars would
automatically do. What's more, it is the *harmonized* accounts that tend
to go into oral tradition. So, in assessing such variants, one *must*
try to assess the source. The diatessaron? Oral tradition? Translational
style? Coincidence?

BTW -- if anyone wants to examine the effects of oral tradition, it's
one of the encyclopedia items I wrote. Arguably the closest thing to
an authoritative one I was able to compile, since it's easier to be a
freelance folklorist than a freelance textual critic. :-) Again, the URL
is

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

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