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

Re: tc-list History of transmission

Expand Messages
  • Carlton Winbery
    From the discussion of history of text; ... One interesting development is the application of the rule, when to use the movable nu (or I prefer the way Ward
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 23, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      From the discussion of history of text;

      >>> Every variation that is not purely accidental, bears witness to a
      >>> particular understanding of the Biblical text.
      >>
      >>Could you elaborate on this idea a little?
      >
      >I'm not sure what the original author meant, but I concur with the
      >idea.
      >
      >Put it this way: Scribes would naturally tend to make the text
      >conform with their prejudices -- which in turn reflect their
      >theology. An obvious example is John 7:8. The original text surely
      >quotes Jesus as saying that he "would not" go up to the feast.
      >But he *did* go to the feast. So scribes, who could not bear
      >the idea that Jesus would lie, change his mind, or be wrong,
      >corrected this to would not yet" go to the feast.
      >
      >I'm not sure if there are enough variants of this type to reveal
      >anything about scribes' thought patterns -- but I suppose there
      >might be.
      >
      One interesting development is the application of the rule, when to use the
      "movable nu" (or I prefer the way Ward Powers says it - the omission of nu
      in certain situations.

      When 1346 was penned, the scribe seems not to know the rule and uses the nu
      almost wherever he can (after SI, SE, etc) very much like it is in the
      UBS/N-A. A corrector (probably sometime after the 13th century) erases
      most of the nu's before consonants (hundreds of erasures), making the use
      conform to the rule as it generally does in the various editions of the TR.
      I hope that collators will make a practice of taking note of such
      variations (not many do). They can help us see that the later Byzantine
      scribes did update the texts at least in this area. It is also interesting
      to those of us who like to do a history of the language.



      Carlton L. Winbery
      Fogleman Professor of Religion
      Louisiana College
      Pineville, LA 71359
      winberyc@...
      winbery@...
    • Jonathan D. Safren
      I find the exchange of viewpoints on the goals of tectual criticism to be both enlightening and useful, and I m going to make use of it in my Intro to Bible
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 24, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        I find the exchange of viewpoints on the goals of tectual criticism to
        be both enlightening and useful, and I'm going to make use of it in my
        Intro to Bible course.
        Thanks to both of you,
        jonathan d. Safren
        Dept. of Biblical studies
        Beit Berl College
      • Robert B. Waltz
        ... Depends on what one s interests are. If one is a textual critic, this is of course true. But a history of the Byzantine text might be more interesting to
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 24, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, dwashbur@... wrote:

          >> In my humble view, there is more than one objective for Biblical Textual
          >> Criticism.
          >> The primary one is to recover the earliest recoverable text.
          >
          >I would call this the ultimate objective, the one toward which the
          >other objectives lead.

          Depends on what one's interests are. If one is a textual critic, this
          is of course true. But a history of the Byzantine text might be more
          interesting to one writing the history of the Orthodox church. :-)

          >> Another is to reconstruct
          >> the history of the transmission of the text.
          >
          >As an end in itself, I sometimes wonder how much real value there is
          >in this.

          Again, it depends on one's interests. OTOH, I would argue that our
          opinion of the history of the text is one of the most important
          elements (in my case, *the* most important element) in determining
          how we practice textual criticism. (This was pointed out by
          Michael Holmes. It's amazing how a single chance comment can
          affect one's viewpoint. :-)

          [ ... ]

          >> There is a lot to be learned from the Byzantine
          >> Manuscripts, information that would be valuable to church historians, and
          >> theologians.
          >> Though this text was the dominant text type for much of church history, it
          >> continued to
          >> change. Why? perhaps if we can gather and sort out the changes, and hazard
          >> a guess as
          >> to when each change began to appear, we will have something of real value
          >> to other disciplines.
          >
          >Not just to other disciplines, I suspect. I do wonder how much the
          >history of change within the Byz tradition can tell us about scribal
          >habits, and how much we can extrapolate those habits back to the
          >pre-Byz traditions. I'm just raising questions here, I would hardly
          >consider myself qualified to answer them.

          One might actually be surprised at the applications of this sort of
          knowledge. For example, a biologist and I once discussed the relationship
          between TC and biology. She understood it in terms of genetics, and
          found deep similarities in the fields. I am not saying that the two
          are directly analogous, and any suggestions from one discipline must
          be tested in the other. But it is possible that they might offer
          hypotheses to test.

          Perhaps closer to home, there are analogies here to the transmission
          of folklore and folk music, and any other traditional art forms
          (pottery styles, perhaps, and hence to archaeology?).

          Most things in the universe evolve in one way or another. Thus they
          all show a certain sort of kinship with TC.

          >> Every variation that is not purely accidental, bears witness to a
          >> particular understanding of the Biblical text.
          >
          >Could you elaborate on this idea a little?

          I'm not sure what the original author meant, but I concur with the
          idea.

          Put it this way: Scribes would naturally tend to make the text
          conform with their prejudices -- which in turn reflect their
          theology. An obvious example is John 7:8. The original text surely
          quotes Jesus as saying that he "would not" go up to the feast.
          But he *did* go to the feast. So scribes, who could not bear
          the idea that Jesus would lie, change his mind, or be wrong,
          corrected this to would not yet" go to the feast.

          I'm not sure if there are enough variants of this type to reveal
          anything about scribes' thought patterns -- but I suppose there
          might be.

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

          Robert B. Waltz
          waltzmn@...

          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)
        • Jim West
          ... On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman s Orthodox Corruption of Scripture - an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in things TC.
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 24, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            At 08:33 AM 1/24/98 -0600, you wrote:

            >Put it this way: Scribes would naturally tend to make the text
            >conform with their prejudices -- which in turn reflect their
            >theology. An obvious example is John 7:8. The original text surely
            >quotes Jesus as saying that he "would not" go up to the feast.
            >But he *did* go to the feast. So scribes, who could not bear
            >the idea that Jesus would lie, change his mind, or be wrong,
            >corrected this to would not yet" go to the feast.
            >
            >I'm not sure if there are enough variants of this type to reveal
            >anything about scribes' thought patterns -- but I suppose there
            >might be.

            On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of
            Scripture"- an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in things TC.

            Jim

            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
            Jim West, ThD
            Adjunct Professor of Bible
            Quartz Hill School of Theology

            jwest@...
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... As a biologist who dabbles in TC for fun, I have always seen the same comparison. The extant mss are our fossils which we divide into phyla (Byzantine,
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 24, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Robert B. Waltz wrote:

              > One might actually be surprised at the applications of this sort of
              > knowledge. For example, a biologist and I once discussed the
              > relationship
              > between TC and biology. She understood it in terms of genetics, and
              > found deep similarities in the fields. I am not saying that the two
              > are directly analogous, and any suggestions from one discipline must
              > be tested in the other. But it is possible that they might offer
              > hypotheses to test.

              As a biologist who dabbles in TC for fun, I have always seen
              the same comparison. The extant mss are our "fossils" which we
              divide into phyla (Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc) and further into
              "families such as 1739, 2138 and through "comparative anatomy"
              into Genera. P52 is "Lucy" at the present time (g). Through form
              criticism we can even speculate about the "primordial soup"
              (Aramaic sources/NT) for which we, unfortunately, have no fossil
              record but for a probable "relic species" (Syriac). TC sure is
              fun for a biologist! (g)

              Jack

              --
              D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
              Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)


              http://scriptorium.accesscomm.net
            • Bernard A. Taylor
              ... Jim, Could you give bibliographical information on this? It sounds intriguing. Regards, Bernard Taylor
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 24, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim West wrote:

                > On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of
                > Scripture"- an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in things TC.

                Jim,

                Could you give bibliographical information on this? It sounds
                intriguing.

                Regards,

                Bernard Taylor
              • Huey Bahr
                ... things TC. I have to admit Ehrman s influance on my thoughts. My premise is this: scribes did not intentionally corrupt the text. They either corrected
                Message 7 of 17 , Jan 24, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  >On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of
                  >Scripture"- an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in
                  things TC.

                  I have to admit Ehrman's influance on my thoughts.

                  My premise is this: scribes did not intentionally corrupt the text. They
                  either "corrected" it or "supplemented" it. I think that what was changed
                  and when is valuable information that we should preserve and pass on to the
                  other fields of study. From the other fields we can learn why the change
                  was considered to be an improvement. These insights in turn may help us
                  recognize other passages that may have been altered for simular reasons.

                  For example, some scribes added the story of the woman caught in adultery
                  to John's Gospel. We know the aproximate age of the oldest manuscripts to
                  contain it. We know from patristic evidence that the story circulated in
                  slightly different forms before landing between chapters seven and eight of
                  John. Now we can provide that information to church historians and
                  theologians. Perhaps they can provide us with insights as to why it may
                  have been added.

                  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.
                • Jim West
                  ... things TC. ... Bart Ehrman- The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture , Oxford University Press, 1996 (?). ... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jan 24, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 01:26 PM 1/24/98 -0800, you wrote:
                    >Jim West wrote:
                    >
                    >> On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of
                    >> Scripture"- an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in
                    things TC.
                    >
                    >Jim,
                    >
                    >Could you give bibliographical information on this? It sounds
                    >intriguing.
                    >

                    Bart Ehrman- "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", Oxford University
                    Press, 1996 (?).

                    >Regards,
                    >
                    >Bernard Taylor
                    >
                    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                    Jim West, ThD
                    Adjunct Professor of Bible
                    Quartz Hill School of Theology

                    jwest@...
                  • Roderic L. Mullen
                    In re the pericope of the woman caught in adultery, I ve been reading a copy of D. C. Parker s *LIVING TEXT OF THE GOSPELS* (just out with Cambridge U.PR.) for
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jan 24, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In re the pericope of the woman caught in adultery, I've been reading a copy
                      of D. C. Parker's *LIVING TEXT OF THE GOSPELS* (just out with Cambridge
                      U.PR.) for a review. Parker devotes a very interesting chapter to the
                      textual ins and outs of the passage. --Rod Mullen

                      At 03:56 PM 1/24/98 -0600, you wrote:
                      >>On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of
                      >>Scripture"- an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in
                      >things TC.
                      >
                      >I have to admit Ehrman's influance on my thoughts.
                      >
                      >My premise is this: scribes did not intentionally corrupt the text. They
                      >either "corrected" it or "supplemented" it. I think that what was changed
                      >and when is valuable information that we should preserve and pass on to the
                      >other fields of study. From the other fields we can learn why the change
                      >was considered to be an improvement. These insights in turn may help us
                      >recognize other passages that may have been altered for simular reasons.
                      >
                      >For example, some scribes added the story of the woman caught in adultery
                      >to John's Gospel. We know the aproximate age of the oldest manuscripts to
                      >contain it. We know from patristic evidence that the story circulated in
                      >slightly different forms before landing between chapters seven and eight of
                      >John. Now we can provide that information to church historians and
                      >theologians. Perhaps they can provide us with insights as to why it may
                      >have been added.
                      >
                      >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.
                      >
                    • Matthew Johnson
                      On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Huey Bahr wrote: [snip] ... Actually, the Vulgate has surprising links with what could be the original text. This is because the Vulgate
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jan 29, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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.

                        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.

                        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.

                        Matthew Johnson
                        Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our
                        great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).
                      • U. Schmid
                        ... 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
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jan 30, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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
                          schmiul@...
                        • Robert B. Waltz
                          On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) wrote, in part (I only comment where I have something intelligent to say): [ ... ] ... I would say it s
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jan 30, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, schmiul@... (U. Schmid) wrote,
                            in part (I only comment where I have something intelligent to say):

                            [ ... ]

                            >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.

                            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
                            waltzmn@...

                            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)
                          • Matthew Johnson
                            Ulrich Schmiud wrote: ... Really? I can t see why, unless you are trying very hard to read between the lines and see some claim I did not make. ... There is
                            Message 13 of 17 , Feb 2 5:00 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ulrich Schmiud wrote:
                              Matthew Johnson wrote:
                              >>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.

                              Really? I can't see why, unless you are trying very hard to
                              read between the lines and see some claim I did not make.

                              > Besides, what do you mean by
                              > several centuries?

                              There is nothing unclear here. Several centuries IS the time between
                              that when Jerome finished his work on the Vulgate (whether he really
                              did do only the OT and Gospels or not) and the time it finally took
                              over as the official text of the Roman Church. It was not until Trent
                              that Pope and Council proclaimed it official, and not until Bacon's
                              time that he [Roger Bacon] could get away with saying that Jerome's
                              Vulgate was the true text of the church, which must not be tampered
                              with.

                              > 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.

                              But what does this really mean? These numbers tell us next to nothing
                              about which text was predominant when. Nor do these numbers tell us
                              anything about Old Latin readings surviving in Vulgate manuscripts,
                              nor about Old Latin manuscripts harmonized to the Vulgate. Both
                              phenomena were common enough.

                              >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.

                              This may be true, but it would have little bearing on the application
                              of the knowledge of the history of the Vulgate text to understanding
                              the Old Latin & therefore the Western text, since for this we are by
                              far more concerned with the Vulgate in an earlier period, for which we
                              know the history better.

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

                              Now how _would_ you tell the difference between this claim and the
                              scenario I described, that:
                              >>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.

                              In either case, the Vulgate NT outside the Gospels remains mostly Old
                              Latin. So now it is my turn to ask you: what is the point _you_ are
                              trying to make?

                              The point I am trying to make is not that subtle or mysterious. It is
                              that the previous poster seems to be dismissing the Vulgate text as
                              irrelevant to finding original readings. But because of the close
                              relation between the Old Latin and the Western text, this dismissal is
                              uncalled for.

                              But I am not arguing for unique original readings in the Vulgate. In
                              fact, I am not aware of any (although I would not be surprised if a very
                              small handful of such existed). What I am arguing for is its relevance
                              to the history of the text, and to the process of establishing which
                              reading best explains the others.

                              Since in a slightly earlier post you referred to Metzger's handling of
                              the longer ending of Mark, it seems appropriate to remind you that
                              Metzger gave a copule examples of this very process (using the Old
                              Latin) in handling this very passage, as well as in handling Luke's
                              "Glory to God in the highest...". In both cases, the absence of one
                              variant in the Old Latin serves as a "tie-breaker", so that external
                              evidence alone may establish which reading is earlier.

                              He also points out that from the Vulgate (and Jerome's comments on his
                              translation process), we knew that the longer ending of Mark was
                              present in the Greek manuscript tradition, even though no such
                              manuscript was catalogued until W was discovered.


                              Matthew Johnson
                              Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our
                              great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).
                            • Glen Thompson
                              ... The question, as I see it, is not when the Vulgate became the official text of the Roman church, but when it became the predominant text among
                              Message 14 of 17 , Feb 2 6:55 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Matthew Johnson wrote:

                                > There is nothing unclear here. Several centuries IS the time between
                                > that when Jerome finished his work on the Vulgate (whether he really
                                > did do only the OT and Gospels or not) and the time it finally took
                                > over as the official text of the Roman Church. It was not until Trent
                                > that Pope and Council proclaimed it official, and not until Bacon's
                                > time that he [Roger Bacon] could get away with saying that Jerome's
                                > Vulgate was the true text of the church, which must not be tampered
                                > with.

                                The question, as I see it, is not when the Vulgate became the
                                "official" text of the Roman church, but when it became the
                                predominant text among Latin-using Christians. While Old Latin
                                influences certainly survived for several centuries, the Vulgate
                                seems to have become the predominant text long before Bacon or
                                Trent.

                                > >>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.

                                Damasus of Rome was a friend of Jerome and he was the pope who
                                (according to Jerome) asked or suggested that he work on a new
                                translation. Damasus died shortly after that request was made and
                                his successor, Siricius, was anything but friendly to Jerome, one
                                cause for the latter's departure from the capital and journey to the
                                East. Thus I doubt whether Siuricius or his successors would try or
                                succeed in influencing what Jerome did. On the other hand, one need
                                only look at Jerome's bibilical commentaries to see that he was, for
                                the most part, a collector and editor rather than an original
                                scholar. With this in mind, one might argue that at least in some
                                sections of the Vulgate he decided to edit from previoius versions
                                rather than translate anew.

                                Glen L. Thompson
                              • U. Schmid
                                ... Your statement above consists of three sentences that obviously interrelate and are intended to make a point. From my perspective, however, there seem to
                                Message 15 of 17 , Feb 3 4:15 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Matthew Johnson wrote:

                                  >Ulrich Schmiud wrote:
                                  > Matthew Johnson wrote:
                                  >>>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.
                                  >
                                  >Really? I can't see why, unless you are trying very hard to
                                  >read between the lines and see some claim I did not make.

                                  Your statement above consists of three sentences that obviously interrelate
                                  and are intended to make a point. From my perspective, however, there seem
                                  to lay a lot of implicite arguments behind the three sentences in order to
                                  make a point. And I simply was not sure, whether I got them all. E.g., why
                                  are there *surprising* links between the Vulgate and the *original text*?
                                  Are you talking about the *original text* of the Latin version or the
                                  Greek? Why can the non-take-over of the Vulgate as a standard text be
                                  considered as a (the?) *reason* for the *surprising* links? Moreover, the
                                  time frame *several centuries* was not clear to me? Therefore, I asked the
                                  following question:


                                  >> Besides, what do you mean by
                                  >> several centuries?
                                  >
                                  >There is nothing unclear here. Several centuries IS the time between
                                  >that when Jerome finished his work on the Vulgate (whether he really
                                  >did do only the OT and Gospels or not) and the time it finally took
                                  >over as the official text of the Roman Church. It was not until Trent
                                  >that Pope and Council proclaimed it official, and not until Bacon's
                                  >time that he [Roger Bacon] could get away with saying that Jerome's
                                  >Vulgate was the true text of the church, which must not be tampered
                                  >with.

                                  To which Glen Thompson already replied: "The question, as I see it, is not
                                  when the Vulgate became the
                                  "official" text of the Roman church, but when it became the
                                  predominant text among Latin-using Christians. While Old Latin
                                  influences certainly survived for several centuries, the Vulgate
                                  seems to have become the predominant text long before Bacon or
                                  Trent."

                                  [Schmid]
                                  >> 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.
                                  >
                                  >But what does this really mean? These numbers tell us next to nothing
                                  >about which text was predominant when. Nor do these numbers tell us
                                  >anything about Old Latin readings surviving in Vulgate manuscripts,
                                  >nor about Old Latin manuscripts harmonized to the Vulgate. Both
                                  >phenomena were common enough.

                                  There certainly is a limited number of cases for which it is hard to decide
                                  whether we are actually dealing with Old Latin texts being "vulgatized"
                                  (i.e., adapted to a dominant Vulgate text) or Vulgate texts being
                                  influenced by Old Latin texts. Yet I think the general figures do indeed
                                  tell us something. Though occasionally Old Latin texts had been copied in
                                  later times - just as old, non-Byzantine texts had been copied in the greek
                                  minuscule times -, the vast majority of Latin Mss from the 5th to 9th/10th
                                  centuries seem to basically belong to the Vulgate type. Thus the latter
                                  phenomenon seems to tell us something about the predominant text for most
                                  every place of Ms production despite a much later "official" (church
                                  council) reception of this text.

                                  [Schmid]
                                  >>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.
                                  >
                                  >This may be true, but it would have little bearing on the application
                                  >of the knowledge of the history of the Vulgate text to understanding
                                  >the Old Latin & therefore the Western text, since for this we are by
                                  >far more concerned with the Vulgate in an earlier period, for which we
                                  >know the history better.

                                  Who knows? Within the literally thousands of later Vulgate Mss we might
                                  even detect more and different residues of Old Latin tincture than we
                                  already know, thus possibly pointing partly to a much stronger Old Latin
                                  element even in later times. This could even serve to strengthen your
                                  point, if I understand it correctly.

                                  [Schmid]
                                  >>Part of the NT Vulgate, for example the Pauline Epistles, most likely
                                  >>wasn't even the work of Jerome.
                                  >
                                  >Now how _would_ you tell the difference between this claim and the
                                  >scenario I described, that:
                                  >>>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.
                                  >
                                  >In either case, the Vulgate NT outside the Gospels remains mostly Old
                                  >Latin. So now it is my turn to ask you: what is the point _you_ are
                                  >trying to make?

                                  Again, your statement is much too unsubtle. According to _Walter Thiele,
                                  Probleme der Versio Latina in den Katholischen Briefen, in: Die Alten
                                  Uebersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenvaeterzitate und Lektionare
                                  (ed. K. Aland), ANTF 5 (Berlin - New York 1972), pp. 93-119_, the Vulgate
                                  of the Catholic Epistles, though interlocked with the Old Latin types, has
                                  a unique character when compared to the Old Latin.

                                  [Johnson]
                                  >The point I am trying to make is not that subtle or mysterious. It is
                                  >that the previous poster seems to be dismissing the Vulgate text as
                                  >irrelevant to finding original readings. But because of the close
                                  >relation between the Old Latin and the Western text, this dismissal is
                                  >uncalled for.

                                  So the point you are making is dependent on the role of the "Western text".
                                  Is this correct? But this involves a whole *kosmos* of theories on the
                                  "Western text", which are hotly debated. You simply cannot expect me (or
                                  others) to know which theories you subscribe to in that respect, nor that I
                                  subscribe.

                                  >But I am not arguing for unique original readings in the Vulgate. In
                                  >fact, I am not aware of any (although I would not be surprised if a very
                                  >small handful of such existed). What I am arguing for is its relevance
                                  >to the history of the text, and to the process of establishing which
                                  >reading best explains the others.

                                  Here we possibly meet one of the sources of our misunderstandings, if I may
                                  put it that way. You are concerned with *original readings* (Greek Urtext?)
                                  and overall textual history, while my concern in this case (i.e., Latin
                                  version) is a much more modest one. I'm simply struggling with the history
                                  of the *Latin versions* on its own. In that perspective your inferences
                                  from the Latin versions towards overall textual theory seems to me an
                                  example of oversimplification on the Latin side.

                                  >Since in a slightly earlier post you referred to Metzger's handling of
                                  >the longer ending of Mark,

                                  [snip]

                                  Now that strikes me.
                                  a) When ("slightly earlier") did I refer to Metzger?
                                  b) When did I refer to Metzger in a connection that is pertinent to our
                                  present discussion?
                                  Remember, my focus is on the Latin versions and the understanding of their
                                  development. From my point of view I only addressed questions related to
                                  that problem. (E.g., if Jerome were not responsible for the Vulgate of the
                                  whole NT, speculations on the pope's "pressure" accounting for the Old
                                  Latin element in the Vulgate is of no help.) I need to understand this
                                  problem first before connecting it to overall textual theory. Your initial
                                  abbreviated presentation of the Latin versions was too condensed to be
                                  clear to me. I simply called for a more detailed outline on your side.
                                  Maybe I should have been more explicit on that.

                                  Ulrich Schmid



                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
                                  schmiul@...
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.