Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination?

From: Jean Valentin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mar, 13 Jul 99 01:56:45 +0200

I am very interested by the broad and rich discussion that my question 
about the denomination "Western text" has caused! Even though I do not 
react to everything (it's hardly possible as I need to go on collating!), 
I will keep those messages preciously. It's really "food for thought", 
very stimulating. Now concerning Mr Mullen's intervention:

>	To speculate beyond that statement, versional evidence in Armenian and
>Georgian that has been noted from time to time for Group Theta readings
>suggests to me that pilgrimmage traffic may have played a role in the
>spread of that text of Mark.  
>	So, I still think that geography plays a role in textual developments,
>though  perhaps not such a broad role as Streeter thought.  --Rod Mullen
>

Perhaps another factor is the role of the Jerusalem liturgy, which seems 
to use more portions from Mk than the Byzantine liturgy does, and which 
has left important liturgical documents in the Georgian and Armenian 
liturgies.

As to other groupings, the inner diversity of the "Western text" has 
been, correctly, underlined by some of you. There's the peculiar text of 
codex Bezae, and probably something like a "syro-latin" text which itself 
could be divided along several lines (Afra and Itala, vetus syra, Gospel 
harmonies...).

As to Mr Hurtado's words:

>The broad point here is that we should treat the traditional text-type
>categories critically, and not force evidence into the categories.

This points directly to my problem: I'm working on new evidence (an 
Arabic version) that shows many affinites with the "Western text" but the 
nature of those affinities seems for the time being very difficult to 
describe. Even though I meet at nearly each verse with variants that show 
up in "western" witnesses, those are never exactly the same. Sometimes 
it's the vetus syra, sometimes it's an old latin ms, sometimes it's a 
diatessaronic witness. I think that assigning my version to a text-type 
would certainly "force" it into a catgory, nevertheless with so many 
variants that are always parallelled in "Western" witnesses as they are 
called nowadays, I get the impression that, indeed, all those witnesses 
in their diversity have something in common. That is why also, I was 
wondering how to give the Western text another name, even though, as Mr 
Schmid says, I'm probably re-inventing the wheel - replacing a misonmer 
by another...

Go on discussing, I'm really challenged by all that! 

Then a little present for you all. In Mt 1.17, codex Bobbiensis (k) reads 
"usque in adventum Christi" (till the advent of Christ) instead of Greek 
"ews tou xristou", a text that influenced two other codices of the vetus 
latina, b and c, which use it in a recapitulative at the end of the 
verse. This variant, if I'm correct, was known only in Latin mss and 
could be called "Western". Now, I can tell you that I find it also in an 
Arabic manuscript, probably translated from Syriac. This manuscript dates 
from... the XVth century. 

There are hundreds such variants that are parallelled with remote texts, 
form Persian to Dutch, without any known Greek manuscript. This is the 
kind of phenomenon that prompted me to speak of "peripheral" texts, 
probably each one carrying remnants of a very old text in many regions of 
the world. I understand the objections of many of you who prefer not to 
give too much weight to geographical criteria, but in the case of such 
variants, their dissemination in regions that are quite far from each 
other impresses me, and I would like to find interpretations to this 
phenomenon. Probably, in the case of my Arabic version, I will have to 
hypothesize that it was translated from some Syriac version in the kind 
of the vetus syra, but then with at least twice more "western" or 
diatessaronic variants (diatessaronic, in this case, not always meaning 
"harmonized", but simply "found in the harmonized witnesses"). This is 
very exciting to me, but on the other hand, sometimes I ask myself it 
this is not too beautiful to be believable?

Jean V.

_______________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
tel. 32-2-280.01.37
e-mail : [email-masked]
_______________________________________________________________

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:31:14 -0400

Jean Valentin's latest e-mail is very thoughtful.  In re the "Caesarean"
readings, it is of course possible that liturgical developments impacted
some traditions and readings.  Egeria, for instance, was keenly interested
in how things were done in the Jerusalem liturgy.  Catechetical works are
another possible route of influence at least for Armenian.  I have learned
since my original research that Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical lectures
were translated into Armenian very early (5th? cent).
Regarding Mt. 1:17, it strikes me that the reading of k might be scribal
periphrasis aiming at a higher Christology-- that is going beyond a simple
record of the generations to a notice of Christ's coming.  Is it possible
that the same idea arose independently in the mind of an Arabic speaking
scribe?
Just food for thought, Rod Mullen

---

From: [email-masked] (U.B.Schmid)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:49:45 +0200

Jean Valentin wrote:

[...]
> from... the XVth century. 

a. According to Juelicher k reads "usque in adventum iesu".
b. The "recapitulative" in b and c could have been taken over from an exegetical 
comment. In my view there is no conclusive case for a genealogical link with k 
in this case, especially not in the direction you suggest.
c. What about the entire v.17 in k and your Arabic manuscript? Does the latter 
reproduce all the plunder of k?
d. What about a Latin *Vorlage* of your Arabic manuscript?

Just a few thoughts...

------------------------------------------
Dr. Ulrich Schmid
[email-masked]