Subject: Re: RE: tc-list Text families of the 2nd Century CE

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:58:23 +0100

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>[email-masked] wrote:
>>                                                         the Vetus
>> Latina Institute argues that all the Old Latin text types derive from
>> one original translation.
>
>Interesting, seeing the grand variety of renderings one sees in
>the different VL MSS.  Does that mean that the Institute has
>a method for reconstructing this original translation? and a stemma?
>
>Vincent Broman

On the "method" of the Vetus Latina Institut (Beuron) see the essay of B.
Fischer, "Das Neue Testament in Lateinischer Sprache. Der gegenwaertige
Stand seiner Erforschung und seine Bedeutung fuer die griechische
Textgeschichte," _Die alten Uebersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die
Kirchenvaeterzitate und Lektionare_, ed. K. Aland, ANTF 5 (1972), pp. 1-92.

As far as I understand, the claim of "one original translation" is
generally confined to those parts of the NT that have been subjected to
closer examination. The in the VL series edited parts (Catholic Epistles
and Pauline Epistles) are said to be derived from one original translation.

The main argument for one original translation is basically this: Despite
the many differences in readings (when compared to the Greek text) and
renderings (when compared to each other) the Latin witnesses also display a
great number of similarities in readings as well as renderings (word
choices in cases where other words could have been used). The experts
usually infer that the sheer amount of these similarities testifies to a
common stratum of material that points to a common underlying translation.

Ulrich Schmid

-------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ulrich Schmid                       E-mail: [email-masked]

NIAS - Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
Meijboomlaan 1
2242 PR Wassenaar
The Netherlands
http://www.knaw.nl/nias/

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:10:17 -0500

>common stratum of material that points to a common underlying translation.

In the case of the Catholics, this strikes me as very possible.
But, of course, the number of Latin witnesses there is very slight.

I'm also willing to concede it in the case of the Pauline Epistles,
with the possible exception of r, which (textually) is very
different from the other Old Latins -- in places seeming almost
Alexandrian.

The gospels, of course, are the source of most of the divergences.
It is here that the theory must be tested. :-) I think it safe
to say that, *textually*, the various witnesses (k and e versus
b, ff2, etc.) do not derive from the same original.

But the textual basis of a version can change without the style
of the version changing (witness the evolution of most of the
Eastern versions -- there are early witnesses which are non-Byzantine,
and later versions which are much more Byzantine, yet the wording
of the translation sometimes changes less than the textual base).

So: The question becomes, Could the European Latin be a revision
of the African Latin, with the textual base modified by the language
still often reflecting the original?

I don't have the sources to speak to this. But I'd be curious to the
reactions. The comments in the standard manuals usually don't say
much about this. If a consensus evolves, though, I'd better put
it on my web site. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."