Thu Jan 16 14:50:39 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan 16 14:50:39 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA29603; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:48:57 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:48:53 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Original Text
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970116112626.284f57de@mail.sunbelt.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1841

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jim West wrote:

> The assumption that manuscripts existed from the very beginning in multiple
> editions seems truly silly; for someone sat down and wrote something first.
> Sure there were additions and second editions and so forth- but there had to
> have been an original!  To say that Samuel exists in numerous editions is
> quite correct; but there had to have been a first edition or there would not
> have been any subsequent editions.

I'm not sure that authorship of all books in the Bible, especially the OT,
is that straightforward.  To use a modern analogy, let's say that someone
writing a book writes a first draft, then substantially modifies his own
work in subsequent drafts, until he finally has a version that he wants to
send to a publisher.  Which is the "original text," the first draft or the
final, publishable version?  In a similar way, if we think in terms of
copyist/authors who are transmitting the text, is the real original their
_Vorlage_ or their final, substantially modified product?  When authorship
overlaps with transmission, as in the case of numerous OT books, as Gene
Ulrich has noted, the identification of a single "original" does become
problematic.  This is not to say that many biblical books don't have a
single original lying behind them.  Some undoubtedly do.  In other cases,
however, the term "original text" is ambiguous.  Gene suggests that OT
text critics look for "the developing strata of the HB which was dynamic
and pluriform."  I think looking for the earliest recoverable form(s) of
the text is another interesting possibility for the text critic. 

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

Back