Subject: Re: On Ancient Versions

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 23:14:47 +0200

>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.
No, there is to my knowledge no translation of this interesting 
manuscript. Neither is there an edition of its text, I am prepairing it 
using a microfilm... and hope to present also a French (sorry...) 
translation with it. Good news, I've just finished typing the Arabic text 
and the translation is going forward too :-)
To my knowledge, there is no translation of any of the many Arabic 
versions. The only exception is the Arabic Diatessaron, probably the 
easiest to find is the one in the collection of The Ante-Nicene Fathers.
In what concerns the texts, the easiest to find is the "Alexandrian 
Vulgate" as we call it. It is an eclectic recension of the XIIIth century 
and was edited by Lagarde. But with no translation...

>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).
To a certain degree indeed. The best introduction to that problem - and 
to the Versions in general - is the book of B.M. METZGER The Early 
Versions of the New Testament (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977). After the 
presentation of each version, he lets a specialist of the language 
involved speak about its ability and limitations to render Greek. If you 
are interested in scholarly discussion of the versions, this book is the 
place to begin!
BTW, before ascertaining the "greek" text that lies behind a version, the 
first thing to know is whether it _was_ translated from greek or from 
another language - there are versions of versions (we call them secundary 
versions, and there are even tertiary or quaternary ones, if these words 
are correct. No, we are not in Jurassic Park! :-). Determining the 
language of the source is not always easy as you can guess, it involves 
careful study. And when you have a translator who works with several mss 
in different languages open before him (quite often in the case of Arabic 
versions), it becomes very difficult to say anything certain. For 
example, there are versions mixing greek and syriac elements, or the 
Alexandrian vulgate uses greek, syriac and coptic texts.

>I understand that this means, as I said above, a step removed from the 
>original Gr, therefore:
It depends on what you mean by that. Let's take an extreme example : the 
earliest gerogian version, contained in the Adish codex (IXth century - 
it was already an old version in that time). Most of its specialists 
argued it was (1) translated from an armenian base (there are even 
armenian words in it, and misconstructions - armenisms - in georgian that 
are due to servile imitation of the armenian model), very different from 
the armenian version that we know (but reflected also in Armenian 
patristical quotations). But (2) the textual type is very close to the 
old syriac version, thus this lost armenian base was most probably itself 
translated from an old syriac base. (3) We have only two fragmentary mss 
of the old syriac, so the Adysh codex can be important to reconstruct 
this text-type, that goes back, probably, to the IInd century. (4) As you 
know, the old syriac is one of the most important witnesses to the 
"western" text - that was thus once very widespread in the East too 
before the triumph of the antiochene (or byzantine) text. So even though 
there are so many stages between the greek and the Adish ms, it is in 
fact quite an important ms for the reconstruction of the history of the 
text, and more specifically for our knowledge of a very important 
text-type : the so-called "western text".
>
>1. What would be the *consensus* (if there can be such a thing in TC!) as 
>to the value of ancient versions in TC?
Well, just look at the very different reactions on the list when we're 
speaking about them :-)
Personnally, "value" is a term I don't like as it has utilitarian or 
moralistic overtones which I believe do not have their place in critical 
studies. The versions complete the documentation as to the text-type that 
was used in several regions of the world where we do not have greek mss, 
or few of them. Also, they tend to be quite conservative as many 
nationalistic and religious complexes (specially in dissident churches 
like the Coptic or Syrian churches) intervene in their conservation (just 
look at the proud face of an Armenian when scholars call their Bible the 
"Queen of Versions", or look at Lamsa's translation of the peshitto, 
where the introduction, signed by the nestorian patriarch of the time, 
claims that the peshitto is the authentic apostolic text overhanded to 
the Church).

>2. Are there versions which are *more* valuable than others?
Once again, it depends on what you mean by "valuable"... Some (old latin, 
old syriac, sahidic) are usually seen as very important witnesses, but 
this can be quite subject to personal opinion - some people will probably 
find the coptic versions very important just because they believe the 
Alexandrian text to be the closest to the original. Versions that reflect 
a well-known text-type are less interesting, as they don't give us many 
variants from, say, the byzantine text or the latin vulgate. But even 
late medieval versions (or patristic quotations) can be very important in 
that they attest of the survivance of a less known text-type, and even 
provide variants that can fill the holes of our knowledge about these 
text-types, their variants and geographical dissemination. Generally 
speaking, the more you get remote from the centres of manuscript 
production and revision, the more it becomes interesting in that 
respect... The great centers (Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople) 
influenced very early the region surrounding them. If they produce a 
revision, it will be adopted in their region, but an older text will 
survive in Mesopotamia, in the Caucasus, in Arabia, or in the 
Netherlands, in Portugal etc... As soon as there is any barrier, whether 
it be geographical, political, linguistical or ecclesiastical, we have a 
chance of meeting another text-type.
Another extreme example : so late as the XVIth century, we find a... 
hebrew ms that is translated directly from the old latin (Paris Hebrew 
132 - it has only Mt). And it appears in... Rome, so while you would 
expect the Vulgate it is not the case as the Jews that copied this text 
were not subject to the obligation of aligning their text on the Vulgate! 

>3. Are there English translations of such versions?
Yes there are, once again, Metzger's book might provide information about 
them. I'm not well placed for speaking of English translations though, as 
I would first look for a French one (or rather, prefer to learn the 
language of the version :-).
But be careful: some of these translations are not scholarly works. An 
example is Lamsa's English translation of the peshitto. Lamsa, an 
Assyrian himself, produced a translation of the peshitto, but as a 
speaker of modern syriac he often let his knowledge of the modern 
language influence his translation, substituting modern syriac meanings 
for the classical ones.
Often, you will find a translation accompanying the edition of the 
version, whether in English, French, German or Latin. As these languages 
are supposedly known to anybody who wants to work in the field, they are 
the most currently used in publications.
Burkitt published the vetus syra with an English translation, Lake and 
Briere published the Adish ms with a latin translation, Marmardji 
published the Arabic diatessaron with a french translation (though it has 
many problems) etc...

>4. Are those versions also *divided* into Alexandrian, Byzantine, 
>Western....?
Some follow quite strictly one of those text-types : the third georgian 
version ("georgian vulgate", the official one unto this day) is quite 
strictly byzantine for example, as are several arabic versions. Earlier 
versions may follow the alexandrian (in Egypt) or the western type 
(though not exactly as represented by D).
Some are probably based on critical recensions made for the occasion. As 
I said, some translators worked with several mss open before them and 
chose the text that suited them the most (many mixed texts in arabic for 
example).
I'll mention too that the "cesarean" text, which is documented by quite a 
few greek mss (some scholars even doubted it ever existed - I think even 
Kurt Aland is one of them if I understand his statement in his manual), 
survives in many eastern versions that, even though they may have 
variations, have too many common variants : syropalestinian, armenian, 
the second georgian version (Tbeth and Opiza mss and others), and several 
arabic versions too - Sinai arabic 71, except for the many blunders and 
carelessnesses of the translator, is very close to Theta. I was quite 
amazed when I first discovered that, before the well-know, 
byzantine-based versions, there were cesarean versions nearly everywhere 
in the East - and, before that, western or deeply influenced by the 
diatessaron. Was it the official text of the Jerusalem patriarchate 
before its "byzantinization"? The abandonment of the cesarean text for 
the byzantine seems indeed to coincidate with the adoption of the liturgy 
of St John Chrysostom in place of the liturgy of St James, and other 
reforms that were introduced in a time when the melkite patriarchs 
resided in... Constantinople.
The situation in Georgia is typical : first the Adish ms with its old 
syriac influences, then the second version, close to the cesarean texts, 
then finally the georgian vulgate, nearly fully byzantine - because 
produced by the georgians of Mount Athos (close to "the centre") - and, 
the georgians are chalcedonian, they are in communion with Constantinople 
so they finally accepted the byzantine text, though late. The same can be 
said of the Melkites of the Middle-East : as chalcedonians, they also 
finally produced versions that reproduced the byzantine text at the end 
of the processus. Non-Chalcedonians like the Jacobites from Syria or the 
Copts preferred to use their own version and translate it into arabic - 
though sometimes with an eye on greek codices.

Oops! What a long post... Read the rest in Metzger and the other good 
authors... :-)

________________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE
________________________________________________________________
email : [email-masked]   ***   netmail : 2:291/780.103
________________________________________________________________
Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique 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: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:24:51 +0000

Thanks to all for the wealth of info I got re: Ancient Versions. Sadly, it 
is one of the areas (in TC) in which I received *no* instruction at all.

Jean V recommended  the book of B.M. METZGER _The Early Versions of
the New Testament_ (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977). Are there any other 
source books of which I should be aware of? All I want is to fill the void 
in my (lack of) knowledge about and of  Ancient Versions, and their part 
in TC.

BTW, in my original post I used the word "value" in the sense of 
*practical TC worth*. Obsviously, as Jean V pointed out, such 
assessment can become very *subjective* depending on the person doing the 
research (the person's TC philosophy). I would think that there are a 
number of ancient versions that because of their antiquity, 
known-language-source, localization, sphere of influence, time-span of 
influence, TCers would regard as having *practical TC worth*. The ones 
that I am familiar with are the ones cited in the N/A apparatus.

As a number of resposes pointed out, Ancient Versions witness to the text, 
received as faithful, and/or available in the place where the version was 
translated and used. Bear with my ignorance, but I would think that an 
Ancient Version would witness also to the TC-practice of the 
translator(s), in the case of some one having several differing mss before 
him. (?).
Francisco Orozco
Trinity Ministerial Academy 1991-1995
(Montville NJ USA)
[email-masked]
Nashville NC USA