Thu Jan 16 13:49:48 1997
From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 16 13:49:48 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id NAA28888; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:46:44 -0500
Message-Id: <199701161842.TAA94668@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 20:54:00 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: Original Text
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In-Reply-To:
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2746
Some (especially from the OT camp) contributing to this discussion raised
considerable doubts concerning the "original text". Maybe things look different
with respect to the two parts of the Bible. Maybe even within the NT (or the OT)
things look different with respect to different books. But at least one thing
seems to be beyond dispute: If there is a textual transmission, we can
legitimately ask for the archetype of this transmission, which may or may not be
the/one autograph of a single (or a group of) author(s). However, the quest for
autographs should not be confused with the quest for the archetype of a textual
transmission, as James Adair clearly set out.
When assessing the archetype of a textual transmission, we usually try to
reverse the process of dissemination and corruption making our way back as far
as possible. At a certain point we have to stop due to lack of further evidence.
And precisely at that point we have to pause in order to outline, first of all,
a theory of the archetype, again, not to be confused with the quest for the
autograph. The whole matter, simple as it looks like in theory, is complicated
by the fact that in Biblical studies we are dealing with collections of books
subdivided into various subcollections. As far as I can see, within NT textual
transmission we are lacking any substantial MS evidence prior to existing
collections. Therefore, to my mind, the first thing we have to do is to work
with one of the collections (e.g. the Corpus Paulinum) addressing the question:
How far can we go back in identifying further subcollections that are either
displayed by textual transmission or to be conjectured in order to make sense of
it?
With respect to the Corpus Paulinum textual transmission displays two distinct
collections of letters: The canonical 14-letter collection and a pre-marcionite
10-letter collection. In order to make sense of the corruption of transmission,
I conjecture one further "pre"-pre-marcionite collection: Gal 1/2 Cor Rom of
which a defective copy is to blame for a great deal of plunder (ending of
Romans). This conjectured collection fits perfectly well to David Trobisch's
first edition of Paul's letters. Trobisch assumes that Paul himself made this
first edition, and I'm happy with that. By implication we are dealing, thus,
with two autographs or two different settings of authorship: the genuine setting
of Gal, the Corinthian correspondence, and Rom and the (different, but
nevertheless) genuine setting of the edition "all in one". We have every reason
to believe that the textual transmission of Gal, 1/2 Cor, Rom ultimately goes
back to the latter -and, the latter is an autograph, too.
Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
Back