[textualcriticism] Re: Rev 22:19 a certain text
- Hi Folks,
>> > In Von Soden's time about 230 Greek MSS contained Rev. In Hoskiers day"Eric Rowe" <e_rowe@...> wrote:
>> > (as Buck points out) about 300 were known. I am not sure how many
>> > contained Rev. 22, but I wager that 99.9% of those that do, read "TREE".
>> I don't recommend placing anything valuable on this wager, as youSchmuel
>> would need over 1,000 mss in order to have a subset that comprises 99.9% thereof ....
>Mr. Dykes replies:
>This is becoming absurd! If we have 300 Greek manuscripts which contain this text (I suspect that we actually have about 190 containing Revelation 22)
As I asked before, can anybody actually identify more than 20-25 that have
been read and verified as to what they have in Revelation 22:19 ?
What is the hard, real, factual basis for claiming 300 or even 100 pre-Reformation
Greek manuscripts reading "tree of life" ?
>and all 3 are infected with a Vulgate (or early Latin) reading.This is not really scientific terminology.
Are not the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the early church writers all very important
witnesses to the ancient text ?
>Which should disqualify these 2 (or 3) MSS as good witnesses of any true Greek text.As I asked before, since when did the preponderance of Greek became the textcrit
sine qua none of the historic (original) text. Isn't the overwhelming Greek evidence
often rejected by textual criticism, so why has it become the signpost here ?
>In my library are just over a dozen copies of Greek MSS which containRight, we know there are a dozen or two, including I believe four uncials.
>this text, none show "book".
My question .. how does a couple of dozen morph into 1000 or 500 or even 300 ?
>produced under the spell of the Latin,Same unscientific fallacious reasoning.
>And Mr. Rowe and Schmuel, I thank you for your questions and concerns!Most welcome.
>More folks need to be interested in their Bibles! You moved me to
>examine my copies of MSS, and to examine this passage in greater detail.
>I shall strive to be more accurate when using percentages.Excellent.
> But then, is my 1/10th of a percent in error? Prove it!He who asserts, must prove.
- Jovial wrote:
>Are you kidding?<No.
> I'm not sure exactly what time periods Gaulic Latin evolved into Old French / Provencial, but I would say that it's probably rather safe to assume that the Old Latin had the biggest influence on that region.<Vulgar Latin as spoken and written in Gaul evolved into Old French and PROVENCAL, Gascon, and Occitan etc over the course of centuries. The first bit of Old French we have evidence of is mid-9th century, the Oaths of Strasbourg, though the language that we could Old French would obviously be a bit earlier.
But no, it is not safe to assume that it is Latin or VL Biblical texts that would be the biggest influence on Gaul in the second century CE. "Old Latin" as a linguistic designation refers to Latin of before 75 BCE, so "Old Latin" wouldn't be influencing Irenaeus in any case.
For one thing, we don't know quite when or where the various Vetus Latina translations began, but our first solid evidence for such translations are in North Africa with Tertullian and the Scitillan Martyrs, not in Italy, esp. Rome, nor in Gaul.
For a second thing, Gaul at this period was multi-lingual. The native Gaulish was still spoken and used, Latin was used for official functions and trade etc, and there were other Celtic speakers and Greeks. Irenaeus himself says he learned Gaulish with difficulty and seems to have preached in that language rather than in Latin. Further, the sixth century author, Gregory of Tours, when writing lives of the martyrs and saints for Gaul at this period (he believes Irenaeus a martyr)almost all those he describes have Greek names, a few with Latin names. Irenaeus wrote in Greek: all his writings have Greek as their original language. Taken together, this suggests that not only Irenaeus, but most of the Christian community which he knew were Greek, and if not Greek, knew Greek or spoke Gaulish, not Latin.
For a third thing, Irenaeus's native language is Greek. He's from Asia Minor. He knew the Bible, the LXX and the early Christian writings in Greek. Why, and for that matter how, would a native Greek speaker who already knew these texts in Greek suddenly jettison all his knowledge and his native tongue in favor of a different language and translation of the texts he already knew? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
And fourth, so far as I know, there isn't any evidence for Vetus Latina translations in Gaul at this period. It might be interesting as an exercise to compare the Latin translation of Irenaeus with VL readings when he cites Scripture, but ultimately that still would not demonstrate that Irenaeus himself knew and used Vetus Latina translations.
>> Vulgate was after Irenaeus, but it was influenced by many of the same Old Latin readings as those in Lyon would have had access to.<<Not at all. By Jerome's day, 2 centuries after Irenaeus, there would have been a lot more Latin translations and they would have been disseminated more widely, particularly in the West since by this time the empire had pretty well split between Latin and Greek speakers. This is what made Jerome so valuable: he knew and could speak and read both languages. That's a rather significant change in the linguistic map of the empire and so reading the situation in Jerome's lifetime back into Irenaeus' is a problematic anachronism.
>>One should be open to multiple possibilities when consulting how Church 'fathers' quote scripture, including the possibility they are paraphrasing from incomplete memory.<<
One should also be open to following the evidence, and certainly nothing I've said on this subject should suggest to you that I'm not aware that many writers paraphrase or cite from memory, sometimes an incomplete or imperfect one.
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze