Thu Jan 16 18:40:31 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan 16 18:40:31 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA02317; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 18:39:28 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <199701162256.QAA07032@endeavor>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:37:56 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Original Text
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2026

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, "Perry L. Stepp"  wrote:

>Generally speaking, Graeco-Roman authors did in fact write multiple
>editions of their ms.  They seem to have circulated these
>editions--sometimes in toto, sometimes in bits and pieces--and invited
>criticisms, suggestions, and then revised and reworked their ms in the
>light of the suggestions they received.  
>
>If this approach was as widely used as I've gathered, it throws the whole
>question of "original text" (at least for the gospels) into a whole new
>light: e.g., both the "Western" and the "Alexandrian" texts of Acts may
>have issued from the pen of a single author, simply two different editions,
>both of which that author  regarded as THE text (as did large communities
>of Christians), circulated at different times.  
>
>[Consider: if such is the case, shouldn't the aims of textual criticism be
>descriptive rather than authoritative (i.e., trying to describe rather than
>trying to arrive at an "original" text?  Ah, I've got a headache!]

I agree that ancient authors sometimes revised their works. I know
that there are even a few cases where different drafts have been
preserved (this is common with mediaeval manuscripts; consider
Piers Plowman or the visions of Julian of Norwich). Even so, I
see two problems with this viewpoint, one general and one specific.

The general one: Even if an author published multiple editions, should
not the *final* one be considered the authoritative text and followed?

The specific: In the case of Acts, the two drafts (Alexandrian and
"Western") are at some points contradictory. Would an author have
changed the *meaning* of his text in this way?

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

Back