04-16-2004, 06:55 AM
Dear Paul:
Suppose we have (say) the original text written by Matthew. This manuscript is of course lost and possibly distroyed forever. Let call it A, It was copied, perhaps many times (B). This copies were also copied many times ©. They are also lost. But they were copied, and copied, and copied. Now we have some manuscripts: Peshitta, Old Syriac (sinaitic an curatonian), and other manuscripts in other langages. Thay were not written in the first century, but they are a copy of a copy, of a copy... They are not A, nor B, nor C, nor D. Thay are (say) X, Y, Z.
May be that in the way from A to X, or from A to Y, or from A to Z no changes happened. But this would be an exception, perhaps a miracle. The usual thing is that some little changes happen. For example, it is normal that the most know of the gospels, the one which is more used in the liturgy, has certain influence on the scribes, consciously or inconsciously, and they do little changes in the text of the other gospels supposing for example that their copy of Mark laks some words which are in their copy of Matthew, and so on. Sometimes the scribes do errors, forget words. Sometimes the scribes have two different texts before their eyes, and decide for one of them (even they can err in this decisions, for example accepting some authority of a certain translation), and so on.
In the greek New Testament scholarship it is usual to suppose that no one of the actual conserved manuscripts has the original text (or original greek translation, does not mind for this particular issue). The long history between the original manuscripts (no more conserved) and the actual ones makes the scholars suppose that a certain manuscript may have the oldest version sometimes, while other manuscript may have an older reading another times. Then the task of the scholars is to compare each reading where the manuscripts are different, and try to guess IN EACH CASE were a concrete expression may be older and why it was changed. This has to be done verse by verse.
When the discussions try to deffend one manuscript IN EVERY POINT against any other possible, a person who is trained in Greek New Testament scholarship (I have studied greek, hebrew, and aramaic for one of my PhD's in Germany) gets the impression that the discussion may be too biased. Why should not be possible (at least a priori) that a manuscipt (say the Peshitta) has and older reading sometimes, while another times other manuscript (say Old Syriac, hebrew or even greek) may have an older reading in other verses. For Greek New Testament scholars it is obvious that, although the latin Vulgata New Testament was translated from the Greek, somtimes even the Vulgata is able to have a better reading than a concrete greek manuscript. This discussion about the oldest text has to be held for every concrete verse were the nowdays conserved manuscripts differ. The discussion takes usually the form of a discussion about the reasons the scribes may have had to change some verse. Errors of the scribes are possible. When you copy a text, you may even miss some words of the original. Sometimes scribes are biased theologically, and left some words, or included others.
You must study the differece, look for the possible motives of the change, and decide in each case. Greek New Testament scholars have observed, for example, that the scribes tended to harmonize the differences between the synoptic gospels, and therefore they suppose that when two texts of tho synoptics differ, you may have an older version that when they completely agree. Thay have also observed that some difficult readings were usually made more comprensible by the scribes, and therefore we suppose that the most difficult reading (for example, when it contains a semitism or a theologically difficult expression) should be older (lectio difficilior, proabilior, says the latin rule), and so on. For these reasons, for Greek New Testament scholars consider that the very existence of multiple variants is a great help in the seach for the original version. (The Old Testament scholarship did not have such richness of texts, and this is the reason why every new text discovery is important and has consequences for discussion about the oldest text). Greek New Testament scholars don't try to deffend the primacy of one concrete greek text (say Vaticanus, Semiticus, Alexandrinus) against the others. The compare each verse and try to guess were the original reading was changed.
Greek New Testament scholars have done this since the XVI century, have developed different rules, and this critical approach has led to a great consensus about the possible oldest Greek Text, which does not coincide with any of the conserved manuscripts (allthough some of them are very old, even from the IId century), but is a reconstructed text. This wide consensus is expressed in the 27th edition of the Nestle Aland New Testament, which completely agrees whith the other mayor critical edition of the New Testament, the so called Greek New Testament. After centuries of studies and discussions of every verse there is a consensus (not complete, of course) about the most possible greek text of the New Testament.
If the Aramaic Primacy has to gain some respect among Western Scholars, it has to go beyond biased discussion which try to deffend one manuscript against the others, in every case. I do not know if that is your official position, but if it is, it would not be taken seriously. I feel simpathy for the aramaic primacy theory, at least for some NT texts, but the proposition of this theory has to go beyond personal disqualifications and concentrate in the arguments, in favor and against each reading, openly considering why the readings differ, and trying to obtain in each case the oldest reading.
I see how biased Trimm may be, because of his theological position (his concrete nazarene sect, and so on). But I openly have to say too that I have the suspicion that the "totally and in every case Peshitta primacy being an ignorant whoever suggests the contrary" (if this is your position) may be also biased for ecclesiastical reasons. Please do not take this as a personal offence. Try to understand my position, and my desire to take seriously your arguments. But please, don't use insults.
I think that it would be very useful, for example, to take the Kiraz edition, to look for evey variant among the texts, and try to decide in every case which of them was the oldest reading. If the Peshitta wins always and in every case, OK. But this is not necessary a result to seek apriori. It is not necesary to "win" or "loose" here. May be that some older readings are preserved in other manuscripts. NOT ALWAYS, but in some cases. So what? This would be a normal result of the transmission of texts during centuries. This happens whith the Old Testament, with the Greek and Latin texts of christian and pagan authors, and this happens of course with the greek Text. We have to look in every case, for each verse of phrase, which reading, which variant, is possible the oldest. I think this is a normal and reasonable procedure.
Pershaps you have already done this. I would like to receive information about this kind of studies. Perhaps is an inmense task for generations to study each variant, and we are just in the beginings. But I think that this would be a very important task.
Yours sincerely,
Antonio Gonz??lez
Suppose we have (say) the original text written by Matthew. This manuscript is of course lost and possibly distroyed forever. Let call it A, It was copied, perhaps many times (B). This copies were also copied many times ©. They are also lost. But they were copied, and copied, and copied. Now we have some manuscripts: Peshitta, Old Syriac (sinaitic an curatonian), and other manuscripts in other langages. Thay were not written in the first century, but they are a copy of a copy, of a copy... They are not A, nor B, nor C, nor D. Thay are (say) X, Y, Z.
May be that in the way from A to X, or from A to Y, or from A to Z no changes happened. But this would be an exception, perhaps a miracle. The usual thing is that some little changes happen. For example, it is normal that the most know of the gospels, the one which is more used in the liturgy, has certain influence on the scribes, consciously or inconsciously, and they do little changes in the text of the other gospels supposing for example that their copy of Mark laks some words which are in their copy of Matthew, and so on. Sometimes the scribes do errors, forget words. Sometimes the scribes have two different texts before their eyes, and decide for one of them (even they can err in this decisions, for example accepting some authority of a certain translation), and so on.
In the greek New Testament scholarship it is usual to suppose that no one of the actual conserved manuscripts has the original text (or original greek translation, does not mind for this particular issue). The long history between the original manuscripts (no more conserved) and the actual ones makes the scholars suppose that a certain manuscript may have the oldest version sometimes, while other manuscript may have an older reading another times. Then the task of the scholars is to compare each reading where the manuscripts are different, and try to guess IN EACH CASE were a concrete expression may be older and why it was changed. This has to be done verse by verse.
When the discussions try to deffend one manuscript IN EVERY POINT against any other possible, a person who is trained in Greek New Testament scholarship (I have studied greek, hebrew, and aramaic for one of my PhD's in Germany) gets the impression that the discussion may be too biased. Why should not be possible (at least a priori) that a manuscipt (say the Peshitta) has and older reading sometimes, while another times other manuscript (say Old Syriac, hebrew or even greek) may have an older reading in other verses. For Greek New Testament scholars it is obvious that, although the latin Vulgata New Testament was translated from the Greek, somtimes even the Vulgata is able to have a better reading than a concrete greek manuscript. This discussion about the oldest text has to be held for every concrete verse were the nowdays conserved manuscripts differ. The discussion takes usually the form of a discussion about the reasons the scribes may have had to change some verse. Errors of the scribes are possible. When you copy a text, you may even miss some words of the original. Sometimes scribes are biased theologically, and left some words, or included others.
You must study the differece, look for the possible motives of the change, and decide in each case. Greek New Testament scholars have observed, for example, that the scribes tended to harmonize the differences between the synoptic gospels, and therefore they suppose that when two texts of tho synoptics differ, you may have an older version that when they completely agree. Thay have also observed that some difficult readings were usually made more comprensible by the scribes, and therefore we suppose that the most difficult reading (for example, when it contains a semitism or a theologically difficult expression) should be older (lectio difficilior, proabilior, says the latin rule), and so on. For these reasons, for Greek New Testament scholars consider that the very existence of multiple variants is a great help in the seach for the original version. (The Old Testament scholarship did not have such richness of texts, and this is the reason why every new text discovery is important and has consequences for discussion about the oldest text). Greek New Testament scholars don't try to deffend the primacy of one concrete greek text (say Vaticanus, Semiticus, Alexandrinus) against the others. The compare each verse and try to guess were the original reading was changed.
Greek New Testament scholars have done this since the XVI century, have developed different rules, and this critical approach has led to a great consensus about the possible oldest Greek Text, which does not coincide with any of the conserved manuscripts (allthough some of them are very old, even from the IId century), but is a reconstructed text. This wide consensus is expressed in the 27th edition of the Nestle Aland New Testament, which completely agrees whith the other mayor critical edition of the New Testament, the so called Greek New Testament. After centuries of studies and discussions of every verse there is a consensus (not complete, of course) about the most possible greek text of the New Testament.
If the Aramaic Primacy has to gain some respect among Western Scholars, it has to go beyond biased discussion which try to deffend one manuscript against the others, in every case. I do not know if that is your official position, but if it is, it would not be taken seriously. I feel simpathy for the aramaic primacy theory, at least for some NT texts, but the proposition of this theory has to go beyond personal disqualifications and concentrate in the arguments, in favor and against each reading, openly considering why the readings differ, and trying to obtain in each case the oldest reading.
I see how biased Trimm may be, because of his theological position (his concrete nazarene sect, and so on). But I openly have to say too that I have the suspicion that the "totally and in every case Peshitta primacy being an ignorant whoever suggests the contrary" (if this is your position) may be also biased for ecclesiastical reasons. Please do not take this as a personal offence. Try to understand my position, and my desire to take seriously your arguments. But please, don't use insults.
I think that it would be very useful, for example, to take the Kiraz edition, to look for evey variant among the texts, and try to decide in every case which of them was the oldest reading. If the Peshitta wins always and in every case, OK. But this is not necessary a result to seek apriori. It is not necesary to "win" or "loose" here. May be that some older readings are preserved in other manuscripts. NOT ALWAYS, but in some cases. So what? This would be a normal result of the transmission of texts during centuries. This happens whith the Old Testament, with the Greek and Latin texts of christian and pagan authors, and this happens of course with the greek Text. We have to look in every case, for each verse of phrase, which reading, which variant, is possible the oldest. I think this is a normal and reasonable procedure.
Pershaps you have already done this. I would like to receive information about this kind of studies. Perhaps is an inmense task for generations to study each variant, and we are just in the beginings. But I think that this would be a very important task.
Yours sincerely,
Antonio Gonz??lez