Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:58:15 +0100

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Matthew Johnson wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Huey Bahr wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Studying the changes in the Vulgate Manuscripts potentially yields a
>> harvest of information on the Western Church and the Latin language, The
>> Byzantine Manuscripts the same for the Eastern Church and Greek.  Neither
>> the Vulgate or the Byzantine text is likely to lead us to the original
>> text, but they are both worth studying for their own merits.
>
>Actually, the Vulgate has surprising links with what could be the
>original text.  This is because the Vulgate didn't really take over as
>the standard until several centuries after it was written.  In the
>meantime, people continued to copy the Old Latin version, even mixing
>it with the Vulgate.

This goes too fast for me to make sense. Besides, what do you mean by
several centuries? When consulting _B. Fischer, Die Lateinischen Evangelien
bis zum 10. Jahrhundert (4 vols.), 1988-1991_ I find 21 Mss counted among
the Old Latin type(s), while around 430 are counted among the Vg Mss.
Though it is true that virtually every Vg Ms has some sort of Old Latin
tincture, nevertheless your statement seems to be too unsubtle. BTW-- We
know virtually nothing about the later history of the Vulgate from the 10th
to the 15th centuries.

>Now the Old Latin, although it has its own text types (African,
>Spanish, etc), is in turn closely related to the 'Western' text-type.
>I expect there are few subscribers to this list who doubt the value of
>the 'Western' type in the search for original readings.

Which witnesses belong to the *Spanish* Old Latin text type for which books?

Again, your statement concerning the Old Latin's relation to the 'Western'
text-type seems too broad in my view. The differentiation among the Old
Latin witnesses of the 'Western' text-type of the Gospels, for example, is
much greater than among the Pauline Epistles. If you take D (05) to be the
core witness of the 'Western' text-type of the Gospels, its facing Latin
column d (OL 5) is relatively isolated among its Old Latin surroundings.

>Besides, much of the New Testament, even in Jerome's Vulgate, was
>copied almost unmodified from the Old Latin.  Perhaps the Pope was
>putting pressure on Jerome to finish.

Part of the NT Vulgate, for example the Pauline Epistles, most likely
wasn't even the work of Jerome.

Again, what is the point you are making?

Ulrich Schmid

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:37:57 -0600

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, [email-masked] (U. Schmid) wrote,
in part (I only comment where I have something intelligent to say):

[ ... ]

>column d (OL 5) is relatively isolated among its Old Latin surroundings.

I would say it's more than "relatively" isolated; it's extremely
isolated. Just as D/05 is isolated among the "Western" witnesses.

Whatever one believes about D and its history, it is not a typical
"Western" witness of the type.

Not so, however, in Paul. I agree that the Latin witnesses here
agree much more closely (except for r, which is very distinct and
in places almost Alexandrian).

Interestingly, the Latin side of Claromontanus seems to be the
typical "Western" witness to Paul. It has higher rates of agreement
with the other witnesses tested (D, F/G, a, b, d, f, vg) than they
have with each other. The Old Latin b is next.

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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