Fri Jan 17 10:25:18 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jan 17 10:25:18 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA10398; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:24:55 -0500
Message-Id: <199701171519.JAA16799@endeavor>
From: "Perry L. Stepp" 
To: 
Subject: Re: Original Text
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:13:26 -0600
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2566

In response to my observation, Robert Waltz observed:

> 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.  

> 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?

I have no real response to your general objection, other than to note
that--if in fact books were written as I've suggested above--this probably
remains an open and thorny question, involving faith questions (i.e., the
doctrine and authority of scripture, the nature of inspiration and canon)
as well as historical questions.  The fact would remain that significant
groups of Christians spent decades/centuries/millenia regarding the earlier
editions as authoritative bases for practice and faith.

To your specific objection, however--haven't you ever rewritten something
in a way that took an entirely different tack than what you'd originally
written?  The appeal to contradiction as a general rule (to wit, "no author
would write something that contradicted what he/she'd written before")
doesn't stand up, I think.  We'd be better off (and certainly within the
provenance of this forum) to consider specific contradictions between D et.
al. and the other texts, rather than appealing to general rules, wouldn't
we?

PLStepp

************************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. candidate, Baylor University

"A system of morality which is based on relative emotional
values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception 
which has nothing sound in it and nothing true."
                                Phaedo 69b
***********************************************************

Back