Subject: Re: Uncials & majuscules et al.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 03:17:35 -0500

In a message dated 96-10-26 11:55:41 EDT, DC Parker writes:

<< > 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.

 First of all, let me state that I agree with Maurice Robinson's reply; 
"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?"

DC also correctly states that the Armenian was derived from the Greek via the
Syriac, which brings up an important point;  We must look at the Greek MSS
1st, the versional evidence 2nd and then the patrisitic citations 3rd. If the
Armenian was derived from the Greek, then are not all versional NT MSS in
essence "derived" from the Greek?   Therefore we must give precedence to the
Greek MSS and if they are very silent concerning a particular passage (such
as Mark 16) then the versional MSS et al can only be secondary and tertiary
at best, they cannot supersede the primary Greek.  As much as I would love to
have mountains of Greek evidence for the long ending of Mark, I have to
follow these rules to be true to the discipline.  Is it possible to put the
theological presuppositions aside and examine the evidence from a neutral
standpoint?  
Therefore I must disagree with the ending statement that DC made saying that
the Greek MSS give a misleading history of the text.  What is misleading is
attempting to build a theory on secondary and tertiary MSS.  Perhaps there
are still some more Greek MSS to be found regarding this variant, who knows?

In His Service

Rich Elliott

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:36:30 -0700

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, [email-masked] wrote, in part:

[ ... ]

>Syriac,

I should note that there is still not universal consensus on this point.
It seems likely enough -- but far from certain. Also, there are many
who believe that the Armenian was eventually corrected toward the Greek.

[BTW -- since I know neither Syriac nor Armenian, I hereby disavow
any opinon on this matter.]

One thing that *is* important, though, is that the Armenian has a
textual complexion distinctly different from any extant Syriac
version. In the Gospels, it may be "Caesarean"; in Paul, if anything,
it goes with family 2127 (not too surprisingly, since one of the
leading mss. of family 2127 is 256, a Greek/Armenian diglot).

>which brings up an important point;  We must look at the Greek MSS

I think I missed something here. We *do* have "mountains" of evidence
for the longer ending (several thousand Greek manuscripts, and probably
about seven or eight thousand manuscripts in Latin, Syriac (Peshitta),
Armenian, etc. It's just that a handful of manuscripts have a shorter
ending -- and those manuscripts are of great antiquity and are generally
regarded as being of high quality.

>are still some more Greek MSS to be found regarding this variant, who knows?

I would agree that it is misleading to work *only* from versions and
quotations. (Though the only person I can think of who has attempted
anything like that is Boismard.) But we *must* not ignore the versions
completely. They are, for example, the *key* to the "Western" text,
and probably the prop upon which the "Caesarean" will stand or fall.
Similarly, the fathers give us the only way to assign dates and
locations to readings. A solid approach to variants *must* focus on
date and distribution; hence such evidence is vital.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:57:07 -0500 (EST)

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

[re: the Ending of Mark]

> follow these rules to be true to the discipline.  

I of course tend to agree with Elliott here, and consider the versional
and patristic evidence secondary and tertiary, but still an essential
component part of the question regarding the transmissional history of the
various endings of Mark.  However, I am uncertain as to the intent of the
final sentence, since we _do_ have in the Greek MSS, one of the old Syriac
versions, and patristic comment the "mountains of evidence" for the Long
Ending of Mark.  It seems the shortchanging is more in regard to the
"shorter ending" of Mark and also in regard to the omission of the
passage entirely.  I have a theory in regard to the shorter ending, but I
will have to write it up in a more extended form before I loose it upon
the world. *;-)

> attempting to build a theory on secondary and tertiary MSS.  

Elliott's comment here also reflects my own viewpoint of the matter. I do
not deprecate the secondary and tertiary evidence, but recognize it within
its proper bounds as evidence primarily concerning transmissional history,
and not regarding original authenticity of the text.

> Perhaps there

I would not hold my breath. *;-)

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

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:14:19 -0500 (EST)

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> at best, they cannot supersede the primary Greek.

There is a problem with terminology here that can lead to deprecating the
testimony of the versions and fathers.  As Maurice Robinson and David
Parker have already pointed out, the versions are of value to the textual
critic, although Robinson and Parker differ in their assessments of the
relative value.  I think that textual critics who are newer to the field,
however, often misunderstand the connotations of the terms "primary,"
"secondary," and "tertiary" in regard to the versions and fathers. 

To say that a versional witness is secondary to a particular Greek witness
(i.e., its Vorlage) is true enough, but to go on to claim that the
testimony of the versions _as a whole_ is secondary to the testimony of
the Greek mss _as a whole_ is simply not true.  To oversimplify the
matter, suppose that an Old Syriac ms were translated from the autograph
of Mark.  It would be a witness much closer to the original than a twelfth
century Greek ms with 20 copies separating it from the autograph. 
Obviously the limitations of the Syriac language in rendering Greek and
aspects of the translation technique would have to be taken into account
in reconstructing the Greek readings lying behind the versional witness,
but its value as a witness to the text would remain great.  Versional
witnesses are secondary only in the sense that translation technique and
similar matters limit to a greater or lesser extent the certainty of the
retroversion into Greek.  They should not be considered secondary to the
entire Greek ms tradition simply because they are not written in Greek.  A
similar case can be made for the value of patristic testimony, although of
course other factors are involved. 

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:06:12 -0500 (EST)

> course other factors are involved. 

I concur with Jimmy here, but it still must be remembered that the
versional testimony, even pruned and reconstructed, still reflects but
_one_ Greek witness, which (depending on the version) may well be early
and of proportionally significant weight, but also which may equally be
later and of less significant weight.

Of course, if it were known for certain that a version were translated
directly from the autograph of Mark, I would be willing to place far more
weight upon such than upon a versional text which might merely reflect a
"Caesarean" type mixture, which I consider to be late.  Since the versions
do not exactly help us in that regard, I would consider the strongest
versional testimony to be those versions which strongly reflect
Alexandrian or Western texttypes as equivalent to stronger ancient
testimony.