Subject: On Ancient Versions

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 22:22:14 +0000

On Ancient Versions' Value to TC - A question

(Dear Jean V. Thanks so much for your reply. I appreciate your help, as my 
language ability does not include Arabic, and a host of other languages 
;-)

Are you (Jean or someone else) doing the initial translation of this ms? 
(Sinai Arabic 71). Is there an English translation available of 
the Arabic witness to the GNT?). I know that that will mean another step 
removed from the GNT, but I wish to know more about the versional 
testimony to the GNT.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that it is possible to 
ascertain (to a certain degree) the Greek (or Heb for that case) behind a 
version of the Scriptures (version in the sense of a ms which is a 
translation of Gr into another ancient language).

I understand that this means, as I said above, a step removed from the 
original Gr, therefore:

1. What would be the *consensus* (if there can be such a thing in TC!) as 
to the value of ancient versions in TC?

2. Are there versions which are *more* valuable than others?

3. Are there English translations of such versions?

4. Are those versions also *divided* into Alexandrian, Byzantine, 
Western....?

A Lurker,
Francisco Orozco
Trinity Ministerial Academy 1991-1995
(Montville NJ USA)
[email-masked]
Nashville NC USA

---

From: Hubert Bahr <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 13:39:16 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
>The degree to which you can ascertain the text, is going to vary by how 
literal the translation was and how reliably it was handed down.  Pick a few
English translations and use a Nestle text to guess the variant readings they 
are based on.  The task is much easier for the American Standard Version than 
for "The Message" paraphrase.

I've noticed that versional evidence tends to be overlooked in the NT, 
probabally in part, because it is difficult at points to determine which text 
the translator had in front of him when he translated. There is also the 
difficulty of mastering a third, fourth, or fifth langauge (possilby more). 
Some scholars seem to feel that given the wealth of readings in Greek, there
is little value in the versions.  I think all evidence has value, but I am
unable to process all of it--I don't think I'm alone in that.

--Huey Bahr
[email-masked]
I thought it made sense when I wrote it.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:34:06 -0700

>unable to process all of it--I don't think I'm alone in that.

I certainly am in the same situation. I have very little Latin (some
vocabulary, but no sense of the grammar), no Syriac, no Coptic, no
Armenian or Georgian or anything else useful.

But I agree that the versions *need* to be considered. Not just because
they are evidence of an early date. Even more so, because they are
frequently the *key* evidence for various text-types.

Take the "Western" text of the gospels. For the most part we automatically
equate it with Bezae. But D has demonstrably been edited at at least
one point (since it uses Matthew's genealogy of Jesus in Luke). If it
has been edited at that point, we must admit the possibility that it
has been edited elsewhere. This means that we *must* turn to the Latin
versions to determine the proper readings of the "Western" text.

Or consider the "Caesarean" text. I don't mean to start a debate with
Hurtado or others over this. But a simple fact is that *every* so-called
"Caesarean" witness is at least half Byzantine. (And those are the
*best* witnesses -- Theta and family 1. Family 13 is about two-thirds
Byzantine, 700 is worse, 28 is valuable only in Mark, and 565 is also
rather weak outside Mark.) The best witnesses to the type would appear
to be the Old Georgian and Armenian versions; without them we probably
cannot fully reconstruct the type.

Or take the p46/B text-type in Paul. There are only two Greek witnesses,
both incomplete. And they sometimes disagree. In such cases, we must
look to the only other witness to the type -- the Sahidic Coptic.

There may be other examples that I don't even know about. The Gothic
version, for instance, seems to have a number of "Western" readings
in Paul. But the examples listed should be more than enough proof
that we *cannot* ignore the versions. We cannot even be content
with the "big three" cited in NA27 (the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic).
We need to give full attention to the Armenian and Georgian, and
at least investigate the others....

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: ANDREW SMITH <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:42:42 -0400 (EDT)

(concerning the below) Versional evidence is useful in several ways. As is
mentioned, given the already-numerous Greek readings, some scholars don't
want to further muddy the waters with still more readings which some of
the versions might suggest; these readings are much more shakey, anyways,
being re-constructed from a translation. A more friendly use of the
versions is that they can attest to the geographic and temporal spread of
a given Greek reading; here the question is not of a new variant, but
rather mapping the spatio-temporal spread of that variant. For example,
the Gothic Bible (one version with which I am familiar) attests to certain
variants in a time and place where they are not otherwise attested.

**********************************