Thu Jan 16 15:27:19 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan 16 15:27:19 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA29937; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:26:46 -0500
Message-Id: <9701162122.AB09356@iris.arcadis.be>
Subject: Re: Original Text
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 21:22:09 +0100
X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be
X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: Jean VALENTIN 
To: "tc-list" 
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: 1673

Another thought about original texts... Some very important religious 
texts are known as _compilations_ of traditions. Take a look at the 
talmud, the sunna, the Qoran,... also some biblical books have been 
analyzed in that way. Some of these "books" took several generations 
before they were finalized. So, where's the original text? Who decides 
that, when somebody changes the text, it is a compilation, redaction, 
recension, revision... When are we still in the elaboration of the text, 
and when are we in the process of transmission? Sometimes, it's very 
difficult to say, especially when another phenomenon must be taken into 
account: that of canonization.

Now also, if a tradition has existed before it took the form of a book, 
which is the original text? What if the tradition continues its 
development when the book is already circulating, what about the 
influence of the one upon the other? Where is the original text in all 
these mutual influences?

So these are some reasons why I spoke of a "chimera". Of course, some 
books, by their nature, seem more likely to have been "written" than 
"elaborated". Most epistles are probably in this case. The Gospels, or 
the legal and historical compilations of the OT seem to me much more of a 
"traditional" nature, and here the idea of an "original text" seems too 
theoretical to me.

_______________________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est 
inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable.
Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.

Back