Thu Oct 24 11:36:54 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Oct 24 11:36:54 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA24549; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:35:57 -0400
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:31:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West 
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism Theories
X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19961024113331.19d71822@mail.sunbelt.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3722

At 10:53 AM 10/24/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Colleagues,
>
>I have been a "silent observer" on the tc-list since its inception. 
>But two posts today have forced me to come out of my seclusion.  
>

>Who says that the only goal of textual criticism is to "reconstruct 
>the Greek/Hebrew text" or to get "closer to the Greek text?"

Those of us who try to comprehend the preservation and transmission of the
writings produced by the Biblical authors.  Though other fields are
"interesting"- they are not quite as significant.



.>  I do not think
>that the scholars who have devoted the time, discipline, and effort
>necessary to study  versional (or lectionary or patristic) evidence
>have "wasted years of study."  The rest of us should be thankful for
>their contributions.  We should also try to incorporate their 
>discoveries into our own textual theories.
>

Why?  What can the versions add to a knowledge of the Greek text?  The
versions spring from the Greek text and not the other way around.  And using
versional evidence to reconstruct a hypothetical greek text is pointless.
It is a pure scholarly construction and of no value in determining an
original reading. (or were there no originals?  Did multiple copies of
Romans spring simultaneously from Pauls hands and thus no one of them is
"the" original?

>This leads me to a larger criticism of our guild.  The preoccupation
>that some NT "text critics" display for the Greek mss alone is a
>prime example of what I consider to be the "naval-gazing" attitude of
>our field. 

Yet when one is a "navel-ologist" one studies navels.  If one desires to be
a scholar of coptic, cool.  But that does not mean that the scholar of
coptic can intrude into TC and tell its practitioneres that the coptic text
represents a more faithful rendering of the words of Paul than the Greek
text does.

> As we stare into our cloistered little greek
>belly-buttons to analyze the naval lint we find there, scholars in
>other disciplines roll their eyes and wonder what textual criticism
>has to offer to the broader scholarly world. 

Pray tell why should we care what we offer this great and broad world of
scholarship?  Our task is to reconstruct the Biblical text- not seek the
acclaim of the podiatrists of the world.

> I suppose that it
>"behooves us" more to "spend our time" rehashing ad nauseum textual
>variants that occur in the greek mss tradition!!??
>

Until the issue is settled- yes.  It is only nauseating to those who have no
nose for it.

>Please do not misunderstand me.  I realize the immense amount of work
>that still needs to be done on the Greek mss evidence.  But in order
>to develop a satisfactory theory of the transmission of the NT 
>text, more work needs to be done than merely comparing Greek mss. 

True- but the versions offer so very little.  Its like one who wishes to
study the sun but only looks at the light reflected off the moon; one sees
light, but only derived light.

>In order to develop a theory of the text, we need to understand how
>that text was viewed and used by the early church. 

Now this is the field of church history, not TC

> For this,
>versional and patristic evidence is not only helpful, but absolutely 
>necessary.  

Yes, for church history alone.

>Thus, to disparage the study of versions because they 
>represent "translations of translations" is not only imprudent, but 
>also myopic and arrogant.
> 

Guilty as charged.  Mea culpa.  But as Don Giovanni said when asked to
repent by the Commendatore or suffer the fate of being dragged into hell-
Commendatore- Pentite!
Don- NO!!!!


>
>John Brogan


Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Professor of Biblical Languages
Petros TN

Back