04-16-2004, 06:38 PM
Dear Paul:
Thank you for your mail. I also am very gratefully that you discuss the affirmations of Trimm, as I asked for. Do you have some kind of text where you discuss them all systematically? Perhaps is to ask too much, but it would help.
No, of course I don't think that the greeks necesarily did better. Nor the people from the East. That has to be proved in each case.
With the Tanak, it is clear that from the end of the first century the text was considered authoritative, and the jew scribes took special mesures to conserve the text, including the destruction of every other variant. Nevertheless, the Septuaginta (greek translation of the IInd century before Christ), the samaritan Pentateuch, the Nash Papyr found in Egypt, the Peshitta, the Targums and the texts from Qumran show some variants. We also have the Geniza fragments, found in XIX century, which show important variants. Even the Masorets, during the Middle Ages, implicity agnowledged possible variants when they distinguished (in a kind of "notes" or "apparat") between ketib (what is written) and qere (what you have to read), although this distinction also shows their respectful decision to leave the text as it was. Sometimes, this variations are very interesting. For example, sometimes the qere agrees with the Septuagint aginst the ketib. Sometimes the Qumran texts have interesting agreemets with the septuagint againt the masoretic text. Sometimes the septuagint and the peshitta agree against the masoretic text (Prov 14,13). In those cases, it is very useful to have variants, because you have the possibility of reconstructing the older text. And although the septuaginta is a translation from the hebrew, it is very possible that sometimes it contains an older version of the text (also the Peshitta). It is very possible that from the IInd century before Christ to the end of the first century after Christ, were more control appeared, the hebrew text was not totally controlled, and some differences apeared.
Of course, the reconstruction is always a rational construction, which tries to explain why the diferences appear. Sometimes the differences don't allow to decide which could be the older reading. For example, Psalm 141:5 is different in the masoretic text, greek, peshitta, and qumran. Four different readings. The hebrew texts is not clear, but it is difficult to decide where is the best reading. But in other cases, it is not difficult to explain why the difference begun. For example, in 2 Cr 2:10 (9 in some versions) the hebrew text says makkot (beats), but this makes no sense. Other old versions say something like "sustenance". And this makes sense. The variant can come from a scribal mistake between makkot and makkolet (sustenance). At this point the very existence of variants is very helpful to understand the original meaning of the text. This doesn't question the hebrew primacy, but shows the importance of having variants and even of having translations. Of course, the reconstruction can be sometimes very speculative, but other times can be very probable.
I think that is very difficult to say that a text was preserved during centuries without changes. The manuscripts we have are copies of copies of copies. I can understand that at a certain point more control can appear. I could admit that no aramaic scribe tried to do conciously any correction because they were more repectful than the greeks (although to take this as a rule without exceptions is very difficult). But anyway: also against their will scribes can do unconscious mistakes, and this mistakes tend to be cumulative for the nexts copies. This happens in the Tanak. Why should it not happen in the Peshitta?
If you say that the Old Syriac texts are completely unvaluable, I could accept this by now on your word. I have not read them yet, and although I studied aramaic, I am not so fluent to get all the possible nuances. But textual criticism of the Tanak shows that sometimes late translations as the Vulgate or the Vetus Latina, which as a whole represent no alternative to the masoretic text, can sometimes be more accurate than the masoretic text. The reason is simple: they were translated before a scribe did some change in the masoretic text, or they were translated from a hebrew text which was different to the masoretic one. I would find very useful (at least for me) to go beyond the discussion with some concrete person (say Trimm), to do a list of the differences among the texts, and to discuss each difference in particular.
The ecclesiastical reasons can I understand and respect. The love for a concrete text, too. This happens in every church. But it would be very useful to go beyond this. The cause of aramaic primacy (at least for some texts) can only profit from it.
Yours sincerely,
Antonio Gonz??lez
Thank you for your mail. I also am very gratefully that you discuss the affirmations of Trimm, as I asked for. Do you have some kind of text where you discuss them all systematically? Perhaps is to ask too much, but it would help.
No, of course I don't think that the greeks necesarily did better. Nor the people from the East. That has to be proved in each case.
With the Tanak, it is clear that from the end of the first century the text was considered authoritative, and the jew scribes took special mesures to conserve the text, including the destruction of every other variant. Nevertheless, the Septuaginta (greek translation of the IInd century before Christ), the samaritan Pentateuch, the Nash Papyr found in Egypt, the Peshitta, the Targums and the texts from Qumran show some variants. We also have the Geniza fragments, found in XIX century, which show important variants. Even the Masorets, during the Middle Ages, implicity agnowledged possible variants when they distinguished (in a kind of "notes" or "apparat") between ketib (what is written) and qere (what you have to read), although this distinction also shows their respectful decision to leave the text as it was. Sometimes, this variations are very interesting. For example, sometimes the qere agrees with the Septuagint aginst the ketib. Sometimes the Qumran texts have interesting agreemets with the septuagint againt the masoretic text. Sometimes the septuagint and the peshitta agree against the masoretic text (Prov 14,13). In those cases, it is very useful to have variants, because you have the possibility of reconstructing the older text. And although the septuaginta is a translation from the hebrew, it is very possible that sometimes it contains an older version of the text (also the Peshitta). It is very possible that from the IInd century before Christ to the end of the first century after Christ, were more control appeared, the hebrew text was not totally controlled, and some differences apeared.
Of course, the reconstruction is always a rational construction, which tries to explain why the diferences appear. Sometimes the differences don't allow to decide which could be the older reading. For example, Psalm 141:5 is different in the masoretic text, greek, peshitta, and qumran. Four different readings. The hebrew texts is not clear, but it is difficult to decide where is the best reading. But in other cases, it is not difficult to explain why the difference begun. For example, in 2 Cr 2:10 (9 in some versions) the hebrew text says makkot (beats), but this makes no sense. Other old versions say something like "sustenance". And this makes sense. The variant can come from a scribal mistake between makkot and makkolet (sustenance). At this point the very existence of variants is very helpful to understand the original meaning of the text. This doesn't question the hebrew primacy, but shows the importance of having variants and even of having translations. Of course, the reconstruction can be sometimes very speculative, but other times can be very probable.
I think that is very difficult to say that a text was preserved during centuries without changes. The manuscripts we have are copies of copies of copies. I can understand that at a certain point more control can appear. I could admit that no aramaic scribe tried to do conciously any correction because they were more repectful than the greeks (although to take this as a rule without exceptions is very difficult). But anyway: also against their will scribes can do unconscious mistakes, and this mistakes tend to be cumulative for the nexts copies. This happens in the Tanak. Why should it not happen in the Peshitta?
If you say that the Old Syriac texts are completely unvaluable, I could accept this by now on your word. I have not read them yet, and although I studied aramaic, I am not so fluent to get all the possible nuances. But textual criticism of the Tanak shows that sometimes late translations as the Vulgate or the Vetus Latina, which as a whole represent no alternative to the masoretic text, can sometimes be more accurate than the masoretic text. The reason is simple: they were translated before a scribe did some change in the masoretic text, or they were translated from a hebrew text which was different to the masoretic one. I would find very useful (at least for me) to go beyond the discussion with some concrete person (say Trimm), to do a list of the differences among the texts, and to discuss each difference in particular.
The ecclesiastical reasons can I understand and respect. The love for a concrete text, too. This happens in every church. But it would be very useful to go beyond this. The cause of aramaic primacy (at least for some texts) can only profit from it.
Yours sincerely,
Antonio Gonz??lez