Re: [textualcriticism] Rev 22:19 - book of life - tree of life
- These arguments for "tree" seem faith based, not fact based. One way to tell is to consider other passages where similar, but much greater evidence exists for non-TR or non-KJV readings. In such cases, the same factual evidence often presents the necessity of choosing a text against the TR or KJV. Such is hard to do for a faith based text critic.
Rn MintonOn 8/3/06, Schmuel <schmuel@...> wrote:
Daniel Buck -
>Schmuel is downplaying the Greek evidence, which is overwhelmingly against 'book,' and playing up evidence from other ms traditions. It seems to frustrate him that no one is willing to accept an
>original 'tree' reading as <i>possible</i>;
Actually a "book" reading.
Daniel, there is no "frustration". I am learning a lot through the discussion,
and perhaps some of the textual paradigms will be examined more closely.
>yet the burden of proof is upon him to show that it is at all <i>probable</i>.
Actually, in this forum I would be more than happy if some folks acknowledged
it was "possible" or "reasonable" or "supportable".
>What is the evidence?
You omitted both early church writers and internal evidence. Early church
writers is often woefully underplayed in textual discussions. Internal evidences
are fascinating, and to a large extent paradigmically based (eg. those who
view the New Testament as a consistent and accurate book will frequently
see internal evidences differently than those who view it more as accidental
>1.Old Latin: The Old Latin mss aren't all that old.
The line is considered an ancient line, often placed as from the 2nd century.
>None of them predate Jerome's Vulgate. Are these Old Latin mss with 'book' from the
>9th, 10th, or 11th centuries? If so they are contemporaneous with many
>of Hoskier's 180-odd minuscules with 'tree'.
If I remember at least some were much earlier than that.
As were, of course, the early church writers.
>2. Codex Teplensis: This Gutenburg-era mss isn't all that useful for
>textual criticism. The text itself is rather wild in places, but where
>its vorlage can be tracked down it is nothing but a late translation
>of late Vulgate mss.
There are many differences from the Vulgate. We once did a study of
about 25 well known readings and many were non-Vulgate. And I saw
no 'wild' readings, perhaps you would give a few examples ?
And I wonder, do you consider Aleph and B "wild' texts ? They have
lots of independent readings, both singularly and collectively.
> Thus a reading of 'book' is but to be expected.
Again, the Tepl has a large number of non-vulgate readings.
I wonder, have you ever reviewed some of the readings, or are you
just rehashing Metzger ?
>3. Vulgate: Which Vulgate mss read 'book?' If it is only the late
>ones, what does that evidence point to, but a ligno>libro shift?
A very big "if".
Anybody want to attack this one ? Start by giving us what are considered
the earliest extant Vulgate line manuscripts and lets check a few.
>4. Boharic: This evidence can't be ignored. But neither can the
>hypothesis of Latin influence. At the least this lead needs to be
>investigated more thoroughly before being tossed back into play.
Agreed ... however you completely omitted a couple of the major leads
and sluffed off some of the others.
Oh, I restored the more neutral subject line :-)
- 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