Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [John_Lit] Syro-Latin agreements?

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Who are these critics? And towards what end do they stress these agreements? Is it, as you want to suggest, to get back to a gospel that is both more
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 25, 2002
      Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

      > Dear friends,
      >
      > Numerous respected textual critics have stressed the value of the
      > Syro-Latin agreements against the Greek text.

      Who are these critics? And towards what end do they stress these agreements?
      Is it, as you want to suggest, to get back to a gospel that is both more
      primitive than, as well as a/the source for our canonical Gospels? Or is it in
      the service of stating what the Greek of GMatt, GMark, GLuke, and GJohn
      actually read?. If it is the former, please provided us with explicit
      quotations which demonstrate this.

      > In their opinion, these
      > agreements between the Old Syriac and the Old Latin gospel texts seem to
      > indicate the earliest texts that we now possess.

      Let's get something straight, shall we? This is **not** -- I repeat, **not**
      -- what their opinion was/is (and I for one would be grateful if you'd stop
      misrepresenting it). Rather, it was/is that the OS and the OL agreements
      against the earliest Greek MSS that we currently possess provided evidence
      **only** for what a given passage in Greek MSS **we do not have** most likely
      read. The issue always was and is about particular readings of particular
      verses within Greek MSS.

      > Also, Wieland asked me before to post here for discussion some Syro-Latin
      > agreements in Jn. There's of course a great number of such agreements, so
      > where do we begin?

      And I asked you -- in the light of your last message on this subject --
      whether or not you actually know or are only guessing that it is a fact that
      there are **any** agreements between the OL and the OS agreements against
      Greek MSS of GJohn.

      So we begin -- as you have been asked more than once now to do, but have
      continually abdicated your responsibility for doing -- with your actually
      listing what these "great number" of agreements are.

      Yours,

      JG

      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Floor 1
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
      jgibson000@...
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 25, 2002
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:06 PM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Syro-Latin agreements?


        > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

        > > In their opinion, these
        > > agreements between the Old Syriac and the Old Latin gospel texts seem to
        > > indicate the earliest texts that we now possess.

        I don't agree with this at all. First, you need to list these
        agreements....use the original languages please....and demonstrate that
        these readings are "earlier" than the Greek manuscripts rather than readings
        unique to a specific text type that is no longer extant. To stay on topic,
        please list the agreements between the Old Syriac and Old Latin versions
        against GJohn.

        Which textual critics do you refer as of this opinion?


        Jack
      • Yuri Kuchinsky
        ... This is not such a simple subject. So, in the way of introduction, allow me to cite what William Petersen wrote to TC-List on 9 Nov 2000, In a nutshell,
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 29, 2002
          On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Jack Kilmon wrote:
          > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
          >
          > > > In their opinion, these
          > > > agreements between the Old Syriac and the Old Latin gospel texts
          > > > seem to indicate the earliest texts that we now possess.
          >
          > I don't agree with this at all. First, you need to list these
          > agreements....use the original languages please....and demonstrate
          > that these readings are "earlier" than the Greek manuscripts rather
          > than readings unique to a specific text type that is no longer extant.
          > To stay on topic, please list the agreements between the Old Syriac
          > and Old Latin versions against GJohn.
          >
          > Which textual critics do you refer as of this opinion?

          This is not such a simple subject. So, in the way of introduction, allow
          me to cite what William Petersen wrote to TC-List on 9 Nov 2000,

          "In a nutshell, the problem is this: time and again, the Old Syriac and
          our other most ancient eastern sources (Aphrahat, Ephrem, etc.) agree with
          the Vetus Latina. F.H. Chase gave a long list of such variants more than a
          century ago (two books by him; titles are in my bibliographies), and
          Vogels and others have added to these lists. Sometimes/Often the Greek
          reading at the corresponding point seems a later "improvement" of the
          Syriac/Latin variant. ... [O]ne point is indisputable: since the same
          variants are often found not just the Vetus Latina and the Vetus Syra, but
          also in Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen--as well as Aphrahat and
          Ephrem--they *must* be very ancient (pre-167: the latest date of Justin's
          death)."

          Also, Petersen addresses this subject further in his TATIAN'S DIATESSARON,
          on pp. 20-22, where, to illustrate his point, he provides abundant
          quotations from F.C. Burkitt (1899), E. Nestle (1901), A. Souter (1909),
          C.H. Turner (1928), and A. Voeoebus (1951).

          And yet, for some strange reason, this whole subject has been extremely
          neglected by the recent generations of textual critics. To quote W.
          Petersen once more, he writes in the same book that this theme has been
          "ignored by most handbooks of New Testament textual criticism, and by the
          editors of critical editions of the Greek New Testament" (TATIAN'S
          DIATESSARON, 1994, p. 20).

          So I would certainly like to know why this subject has been so ignored in
          recent scholarship. Could it be because it casts some doubt on the
          absolute priority of the Greek text, which is such a common assumption in
          TC today?

          As to listing some specific examples of these Syro-Latin agreements in Jn,
          they can be found in the apparatus of any standard edition of NT. So
          anybody who owns a copy of Nestle-Aland, for example, and knows how to
          read those footnotes, can see them there easily. For example, three of
          them are listed for Jn 1:1-18 in UBS 1966 edition. (Of course some other
          apparati list even more of them for the same opening passage in Jn.)

          By drawing attention to this very important but long-neglected subject I
          feel like I'm contributing to scholarship in a positive sense. I also hope
          that those people who are really interested in this subject will do a
          little homework in this area for themselves. And I remind that I have
          already offered to post here 9 variant readings in Jn 2:1-11 that can be
          considered as Syro-Latin agreements.

          Respectfully,

          Yuri.

          Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

          The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
          equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... Hardly. If you d actually read the works of Chase, Burkitt, Nestle, etc., you d know not only that not a single one of these men ever doubts the priority
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 29, 2002
            Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

            > On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Jack Kilmon wrote:
            > > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
            > >
            > > > > In their opinion, these
            > > > > agreements between the Old Syriac and the Old Latin gospel texts
            > > > > seem to indicate the earliest texts that we now possess.
            > >
            > > I don't agree with this at all. First, you need to list these
            > > agreements....use the original languages please....and demonstrate
            > > that these readings are "earlier" than the Greek manuscripts rather
            > > than readings unique to a specific text type that is no longer extant.
            > > To stay on topic, please list the agreements between the Old Syriac
            > > and Old Latin versions against GJohn.
            > >
            > > Which textual critics do you refer as of this opinion?
            >
            > This is not such a simple subject. So, in the way of introduction, allow
            > me to cite what William Petersen wrote to TC-List on 9 Nov 2000,
            >
            > "In a nutshell, the problem is this: time and again, the Old Syriac and
            > our other most ancient eastern sources (Aphrahat, Ephrem, etc.) agree with
            > the Vetus Latina. F.H. Chase gave a long list of such variants more than a
            > century ago (two books by him; titles are in my bibliographies), and
            > Vogels and others have added to these lists. Sometimes/Often the Greek
            > reading at the corresponding point seems a later "improvement" of the
            > Syriac/Latin variant. ... [O]ne point is indisputable: since the same
            > variants are often found not just the Vetus Latina and the Vetus Syra, but
            > also in Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen--as well as Aphrahat and
            > Ephrem--they *must* be very ancient (pre-167: the latest date of Justin's
            > death)."
            >
            > Also, Petersen addresses this subject further in his TATIAN'S DIATESSARON,
            > on pp. 20-22, where, to illustrate his point, he provides abundant
            > quotations from F.C. Burkitt (1899), E. Nestle (1901), A. Souter (1909),
            > C.H. Turner (1928), and A. Voeoebus (1951).
            >
            > And yet, for some strange reason, this whole subject has been extremely
            > neglected by the recent generations of textual critics. To quote W.
            > Petersen once more, he writes in the same book that this theme has been
            > "ignored by most handbooks of New Testament textual criticism, and by the
            > editors of critical editions of the Greek New Testament" (TATIAN'S
            > DIATESSARON, 1994, p. 20).
            >
            > So I would certainly like to know why this subject has been so ignored in
            > recent scholarship. Could it be because it casts some doubt on the
            > absolute priority of the Greek text, which is such a common assumption in
            > TC today?
            >

            Hardly. If you'd actually read the works of Chase, Burkitt, Nestle, etc.,
            you'd know not only that not a single one of these men ever doubts the
            priority of the Greek text, but also that their work in examining the OS/OL
            agreements was/is all done in an attempt to get to a better sense of what that
            Greek text was than is given us by our earliest extant major MSS witnesses to
            that text. In other words, their work was done under, and they saw/see it as
            something that confirms and buttresses, what you call an assumption but which
            to them was/is a fact.

            So if the subject that these men deal/dealt with really has "so" been ignored
            -- and your note that the agreements are actually in the apparatus of critical
            editions of the NT gives the lie to your assertion -- it is obviously for some
            other reason.

            Let's cease with the false dichotomies, please.

            JG
            --
            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
            1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
            Floor 1
            Chicago, Illinois 60626
            e-mail jgibson000@...
            jgibson000@...
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... I am away from my study and don t have my NA at hand. So I d be very grateful to you if you note here the three Syriac/ Latin agreements you have found
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 29, 2002
              Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

              > As to listing some specific examples of these Syro-Latin agreements in Jn,
              > they can be found in the apparatus of any standard edition of NT. So
              > anybody who owns a copy of Nestle-Aland, for example, and knows how to
              > read those footnotes, can see them there easily. For example, three of
              > them are listed for Jn 1:1-18 in UBS 1966 edition. (Of course some other
              > apparati list even more of them for the same opening passage in Jn.)
              >

              I am away from my study and don't have my NA at hand. So I'd be very grateful
              to you if you note here the three Syriac/ Latin agreements you have found
              listed for Jn 1:1-18 there.

              Will you be kind enough to note where within Jn 1:1-8 they can be found?

              Many thanks.

              JG

              --
              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
              1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
              Floor 1
              Chicago, Illinois 60626
              e-mail jgibson000@...
              jgibson000@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.