Fri Jan 17 11:57:18 1997

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jan 17 11:57:18 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA11821; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:56:34 -0500
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:52:31 -0500 (EST)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net
From: Jim West 
Subject: Re: Original Text
X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net (Unverified)
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970117115316.266f3644@mail.sunbelt.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
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: 1288

Jack,

>	I think the GJohn is a good example for this issue.  It is
>one of the most glossed, edited, interpolated and restructured books
>of the NT and had at least 4, and probably more, redactional strata
>between it's "autograph" and the form now extant.  Speculating the
>probability of an original "proto-John" narrative by Johnny Zebedee
>and subsequent embellishments over the course of the 1st and early 2nd
>century by Greek Christians in Ephesus, which "stratum" would be the
>goal for recovery by textual criticism?
>
>Jack Kilmon

There are, without a doubt, layers in this Gospel. The goal of text
criticism here, as everywhere, is to recover the oldest layer; from there
the glosses and additions can be ascertained and analyzed.
But now we have left text criticism and wandered down the "Hauptstrasse" of
redaction criticism.
In its purest form, text criticism assembles all available manuscripts and
versions (yes, I have been converted from my former "non version" error,
thanks to DC Parker's remarks on the subject).  Once these mss are collated
they can be examined.  We cannot, after all, practice text criticism on a
hypothetical reconstruction for which we have no physical evidence.

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Petros TN

jwest@sunbelt.net

Back