Tue Apr 2 10:08:03 1996
From majordom Tue Apr 2 10:08:03 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA06249; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:08:03 +0500
Message-Id: <9604021337.AA31069@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 96 15:37:27 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de
Subject: autographs and archetypes
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Content-Length: 3886
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> No other work of antiquity has such a wealth of support, and no
> classical scholar would suggest that primitive error were likely
> in such a situation.
Conjectural emendation is always a critical point. Nevertheless, especially
classical scholars are often forced to, how they call it, _divinatio_, whether
due to only one existing copy of a given text or due to a corrupt archetype of
the textual transmission of a given text. The whole problem is theoretically and
practically exposed in 'Paul Maas, Textkritik, Leipzig (3rd ed.) 1957'. Looking
at New Testament textual criticism especially classical scholars or classical
trained scholars did never rule out the possibility of, if not the need for
divinatio. Randomly chosen I may refer to Schleiermacher (note hat he was also
an editor of Plato), and in our century to Guenter Zuntz and his article 'The
critic correcting the author; in: Philologus, XCIX (1955), 295-303 (idem,
Opuscula selecta, Mancester 1972, 269-277)'.
It is quite an other thing, to be shure, if one has to accept every single
conjectural emendation, but it is simply a fact that most, if not all classical
scholars never totally rule out the need for divinatio even in the New
Testament.
I just may give an example from Patristic literature, the so-called 'Dialog des
Adamantius PERI THS EIS QEON ORQHS PISTEWS' (author unknown, copmosed between
around 330 and 363 A.D.). The text is conserved in 10 manuscripts stemming from
12th to 16th centuries. They all go back to one single heavily corrupted
archetype including corruptions of all sorts (nonsense readings, interchange of
leaves, etc.). The dialogue was translated by Rufin into Latin (around 400
A.D.), and, though lacking the major interchange of leaves corruption, included
one hardly understandable reading which Rufin smoothed away in his translation.
That the reading in charge is in fact a scribal error can be demonstrated
because we know the source of the dialogue in this particular instance. So we
know that the corruption goes back at least to 40 to 70 years after the date of
composition. Looking only at the textual transmission of the dialogue Rufin was
in no different situation with respect to this peculiar reading than we are
today. What makes the difference is that we know the dialogue's source.
To be shure, I don't want to argue for total corruption in New Testament textual
transmission. Personally I would opt for extreme caution with respect to
conjectural emendation. This is mostly due to the vast amount of textual data we
have to work through. On the other hand there is the very crucial point that the
New Testament is not just one book, but in fact a _collection_ of books
consisting of different _subcollections_. With respect to this problem
conjectural emendation is never to be ruled out. Because, what can be
reconstructed as archetype of the textual transmission may not be identical with
what was written down for example by Tertius (c.f. the doxology and the ending
of Pauls letter to the Romans).
On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Timmothy John Finney wrote:
> Zuntz points out in his _Disquisition on the Corpus
> Paulinum_ that every MS of Paul's letters is a collection.
> Even Hebrews is always found in a collection. There are
> some points of dissension, but in general there is agreement
> that Paul's letters and Hebrews were in circulation as a
> collection by 100 AD.
> When I mentioned archtype rather than autograph in my
> initial post, it was with this in mind. No one knows what
> happened between the original composition of these
> writings and their collection into one corpus.
I totally agree with that. What may be an interesting and worthwile effort is to
collect data possibly connected to the emergence of collections.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back